The days leading up to a new academic year at a university are typically filled with a mix of excitement and anticipation for both faculty and students alike. My Globe and Mail op-ed notes that this year, it brought trepidation and even fear for many in the Jewish community. At my own university, faculty attended training sessions on coping with potential classroom intruders, including tips for de-escalation strategies and detailed security procedures. Students normally thinking about orientation programming were instead forced to ask themselves difficult questions about whether to conceal their religious or political beliefs, for fear of risking backlash or ostracization from fellow students and even faculty.
The source of this dread is no mystery as the stunning outbreak of antisemitism since Oct. 7 has been particularly pronounced on university campuses. Indeed, last spring, the presidents of four of Canada’s largest universities – the University of Toronto, UBC, McGill and Concordia – all conceded to the House of Commons justice committee that antisemitism was a significant problem on their campuses. And those admissions came just as encampments on university campuses across Canada were proliferating – encampments that exacerbated antisemitism concerns and remained active for months until court orders led to their removal.
The start of a new academic year requires a new commitment to combat antisemitism, and to ensure that all students and faculty are not targeted or harassed as a result of their religious or political beliefs. This requires at least three key steps from all Canadian universities.
First, codes of conduct must be respected and aggressively enforced. Policies on students’ rights and responsible conduct invariably provide that all students have the right “to be treated with respect and dignity and without harassment and discrimination,” as the University of Ottawa’s own code of conduct states. Enforcing campus codes is not about limiting freedom of expression or advocacy that is said to leave some uncomfortable. Rather, it is a response to the very real harassment targeting Jewish students and groups on campus, as well as addressing the threats and discrimination levied at those who support or identify with the Zionist ideals of the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their own homeland. These code violations would not be tolerated against any other group and must not be justified, excused or ignored when they involve Jewish students.
In the United States, New York University recently confirmed that excluding Zionists from an open event, calling for the death of Zionists, or applying a “no-Zionist” litmus test for participation in any NYU activity would violate its student code. That approach is consistent with a U.S. court order issued last month against UCLA, another leading American university, prohibiting the school from offering any ordinarily available program, activity or campus area to students if the event or space in question is not fully and equally accessible to Jewish students. Similar standards should be implemented at Canadian universities.
Second, better campus support networks are needed, including reporting mechanisms for incidents of antisemitism, and inclusion of the Jewish community within existing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. The University of Ottawa recently established a new special adviser on antisemitism to provide guidance and advice on addressing systemic and specific cases of antisemitism on campus. The appointment sent a strong signal that campus safety for the Jewish community is taken seriously. It should also help to ensure that university policies can credibly address antisemitism. A positive step for universities across Canada would be to include the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s definition of antisemitism in their policies, which has already been adopted by the federal government and certain provincial governments in Canada.
Third, universities must preserve their position as neutral forums for discussion, debate and learning. Often referred to as institutional neutrality, the principle dates back to the 1960s and a University of Chicago report that concluded, “There is no mechanism by which it [the university] can reach a collective position without inhibiting that full freedom of dissent on which it thrives.”
In other words, institutional neutrality ensures that faculty members and students are free to express their opinions, but the institution itself should refrain from wading into political matters. That principle was undermined by the University of Windsor’s recent agreement with campus protesters, which included commitments to university advocacy and restrictions on academic partnerships that could undermine academic freedoms.
The proliferation of campus antisemitism may have caught some universities off guard last year. But this year, there are no surprises. Universities must rise to the challenge by prioritizing a safe environment for all students and faculty – one that lives up to their ideals of inclusion and non-discrimination.
If there really is a movement to combat anti-Semitism then it’s about time. Not only for the sake of Jewish people themselves but also because it’s so often a companion to other horrible ideas. I think we of Canada tend to assume that we need not examine our country for the presence of bigotry because after all we’re the good guys up here. But we’re not as good as we think we are.
But any attempt to fight anti-Semitism these days shouldn’t be aimed at those of us who are trying to speak up for the Palestinian people who are currently being exterminated by Netanyahu’s government. And I know it’s tricky, because real opportunistic anti-Semites may be concealing themselves among the throngs of people with legitimate humanitarian concerns. But one still doesn’t want to punish normal compassionate people, be they Palestinian, Israeli, or North American. It’s a tough situation and so far schools have not been up to the challenge.
In my opinion, many of those who claim to advocate for the Palestinian people are doing a terrible job, and being deeply harmful. If they had been more mindful of their behavior, more aware of the negative impact of their words/actions, and less dismissive of the hurt and collateral damage they’ve caused, perhaps we wouldn’t be facing this situation.
This isn’t accidental. There’s a reason behind it. One reason seems to be that the pro-Palestinian movement has been deeply tainted by prejudice against Jews and Israelis, and discriminate against them in specific ways that no other minority is being treated. This has changed everything.
Oh yeah, there’s no anti-Palestinian prejudice on the pro-Israeli side. Let’s ignore all of those IDF videos documenting themselves committing atrocities.
That’s a double fallacy. Your first deflection or whataboutism was going on about Israel/Gaza to an article about antisemitism. Now you deflect again.
If you’re having difficulty understanding this, google deflection and whataboutism.
You seem to be really good with the fallacies. Do you want deflect a third time?
“Hey quit committing genocide!”
“Anti-semite!”
They just don’t get that supporting a country committing genocide makes many people sick and angry.
Oh, we know you FEEL sick and angry.
The problem is what you choose to DO about it.
We live in a society where there are conventions and laws around hateful behaviours from people who can’t help themselves.
We live in a society with rules and laws to curb hateful behavior from those who can’t control themselves. If you unilaterally decide that your anger makes you somehow special, don’t be surprised when those rules are expected of you anyway.
Maybe the IDF (the army of the explicitly Jewish state) should stop shooting protesters in the head of they don’t want anger to spill over into the wider Jewish community.
Michael, we’re still waiting for you to use the word Palestinian. We’re still waiting for you to write a single sentence that empathasizes with the Palestinian people.
40,000 Palestinians killed and literally their whole country bombed into rubble. No hospitals, no schools, no homes. But do tell us again how unsafe university campuses make you feel. We all care sooooo much.
Who is “we”?
You use FALSE EQUIVALENCE and VICTIM-BLAMING. Jewish students are not proxies for the state of Israel, and targeting them for the actions of the IDF is an act of collective punishment.
Again, you’re obsessed with DEFLECTION and WHATABOUTISM. I don’t need to explain this again. You already know this, because you’ve been criticized for this before and have changed exactly nothing about your behavior.
Your sarcastic and dismissive tone (“We all care sooooo much”) shows a your usual LACK OF EMPATHY for Jewish students who feel unsafe on campus due to rising antisemitism.
You have done nothing to address the valid concerns about antisemitism. You perpetuate harmful stereotypes and divisive rhetoric. Constructive dialogue is possible, but you are the part of the problem, not the solution, and you do nothing here to improve the plight of Palestinians.
Most readers would be ashamed or uncomfortable to be associated with your “we”.
It is ignorant racists like you that are the problem.
So any reasonable person can read everything I wrote
And then read what you wrote
And compare the two
And decide for themselves who is being rational here
(Hint: it isn’t you)
You are demonstrating the public what it means to be “pro-Palestinian”
Sure, Haha, everyone thinks you’re extremely reasonable. Your online name suits you! Those who aren’t laughing at you are impressed at your bizarre lack of self-awareness.
“You will be sidelined like useless noisemakers, and only the effective players will talk to each other.”
Haha has spoken and only those who they have granted permission to speak can sit at the table.
The delusional level of self-importance on display is truly incredible.
totally agree. I visited the website because i have valued geist’s analysis over the years.
now, i see him in wading in on campus anti-semitism. geez maybe some perspective about what lanes you should be keeping in as an ‘expert’.
israel has a democratically elected gov’t that is theocratic and extreme- just like their neighbours in the middle east. protesting that in canada is worth your time and effort, geist?
That’s a FALSE EQUIVALENCE I haven’t heard before. Israel’s government is just like its neighbours? Just because you say it, doesn’t make it true. For example, I could say: You are dismissive and extreme just like Candace Owens. See, I can do it too. Anybody can make a false comparison. The harder part is to be right about it.
As for critiquing Michael’s expertise, instead of actually engaging in the argument, that’s also a classic fallacy — as you probably know, but you do it anyway because why? That would also make you part of the problem, not the solution.
I agree that better campus support networks are needed, including reporting mechanisms for incidents of antisemitism, and inclusion of the Jewish community within existing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs.
How can Canadian universities better enforce their codes of conduct to address and prevent antisemitism on campus while still upholding principles of free Wordle Unlimited speech and academic freedom?
Students should just shut up and not repeat what Human Rights Watch, Médecins Sans Frontières, Amnesty International, the International Criminal Court are all saying about Israeli war crimes. The real victims are Israeli apologists in Canada who feel uncomfortable being challenged on their support for genocide and apartheid.
This feels like playing whack-a-mole with fallacies. Let’s talk about discomfort for a moment. You come here and read about the safety and well-being of Jewish students—that clearly makes YOU uncomfortable. Is it the idea that Jewish students can be victims of discrimination and prejudice — is that what makes you so uncomfortable? To the point where you feel compelled to post here, unable to resist minimizing their experiences?
Sigh. Imagine how much better the world could be if peace movements weren’t undermined by dysfunctional behaviors like yours.
Actually I come here to read about digital public policy. Obviously Jewish students have the right to feel comfortable and safe when it comes to their religion and their identity. No one here is disputing that but it’s the smear that is used over and over instead of engaging with the very simple point that no one has the right to not be challenged on their political opinions especially when those opinions include support for a state that is committing war crimes and breaking international law as has been documented by Human Rights Watch, Médecins Sans Frontières, Amnesty International, and the International Criminal Court. Not to mention the immense amount of evidence of atrocities posted on Tik-Tok and social media by the IDF themselves that are there for everyone to see.
Oh look Emerys is back, conveniently avoiding the question posed earlier:
“Let’s talk about discomfort for a moment. You come here and read about the safety and well-being of Jewish students—that clearly makes YOU uncomfortable. Is it the idea that Jewish students can be victims of discrimination and prejudice — is that what makes you so uncomfortable? To the point where you feel compelled to post here, unable to resist minimizing their experiences?”
So Emerys avoids that question, this time inserting “Obviously Jewish students have the right to feel comfortable and safe when it comes to their religion and their identity” before launching back into his tirade.
BUT that doesn’t explain why Emerys first wrote “Students should just shut up…” and “The real victims are Israeli apologists”.
So Emerys, if you “come here to read about digital public policy” and you come across an article that is NOT about digital public policy, here’s a thought: maybe process your discomfort instead of posting knee-jerk, fallacious comments.
But let’s be honest, we both know you won’t change. If you were capable of thoughtfully engaging with articles about antisemitism, you’d have figured it out by now, right?
To the silent readers: Emerys seems like just another troll triggered by discussions of antisemitism, and can’t help but react poorly. Emerys is part of the problem, not the solution. Don’t be like Emerys—spreading noise and fallacious reasoning, making it harder for the world to find genuine peace.
“BUT that doesn’t explain why Emerys first wrote “Students should just shut up…” and “The real victims are Israeli apologists”.”
That was obviously sarcasm directed at the attempts at shutting down student protests on campus. Which is what at least half of the posts on this blog are about these days.
The students who want to loudly support Israel while it commits war crimes can be as loud as they want but they should expect to be challenged and not rely on the authorities to shut down legitimate protest against Israel’s ongoing atrocities.
Emerys – you miss the point. Jewish students are not proxies for Israel. Some may be zionists just as some students from other countries may be equally nationalistic or ethnocentric. So we welcome all the children of despotic, oligrachic regimes at least they are not the Jewish kind. That is what anti-semitism looks like.
M – that is the point. The conflation of religious and political beliefs (like what is being done in this blog post) is dangerous because it makes Jewish students proxies for the justifiable anger at what Israel is doing.
No one I know thinks it is anti-Islamic to critisize Saudi Arabia for bombing Yemen or hacking up journalists with machetes. Same way it wasn’t anti-Buddhist to critisize Sri Lanka’s brutal treatment of the Tamils. Ditto to it being anti-Orthodox, to protest Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or homophobic policies and rhetoric.
I am not saying the blurring of this line does not occur amongst critics of Israel, who should be called out for being antisemitic but I don’t encounter that a lot. I see that blurring occur much more from Israel’s supporters who like to use it in a motte and bailey fashion to shut down legitimate criticism.
If it were a reasonable rational informed discussion sure.
But readers have already seen your true colours, both here and on previous blogs.
The pro-Palestinian cult blew it, with the inflammatory prejudiced rhetoric. People like you are not part of the solution. You will be sidelined like useless noisemakers, and only the effective players will talk to each other.
I posted that at the same time as M. This was written to Emerys, not M. Sorry for any confusion there.
“difficult questions about whether to conceal their religious or political beliefs, for fear of risking backlash”
Conflating religious and political beliefs is an intellectually dishonest move. Israel has plenty of supporters who are not Jewish and some of Israel’s biggest critics are Jewish. This conflation is not an accident. It’s a rhetorical technique by Israel’s supporters in the West to silence criticism.
Emerys, your opinion upthread is noted.
You wrote “Haha has spoken and only those who they have granted permission to speak can sit at the table.”
This is obviously an attempt to dismissively frame my point as gatekeeping, but neither of us has any authority over who posts what. What I have done is state how inflammatory, biased, and distorted ‘pro-Palestinian’ rhetoric is part of the problem, not the solution—an entirely valid point you consistently deflected, likely because the truth hurts.
On this topic of your comments being unhelpful and unproductive, let’s recap:
Michael concluded that “Universities must rise to the challenge by prioritizing a safe environment for all students and faculty – one that lives up to their ideals of inclusion and non-discrimination”
And your response started off with “Students should just shut up…”
You later claimed that’s sarcasm. Feel free to explain to the silent reader how your “sarcasm” reflects your self-awareness and constructive contribution to a blog about discrimination against Jewish students based on their religion/ethnicity.
You also wrote “Actually I come here to read about digital public policy”.
I asked you, “Let’s talk about discomfort for a moment. You come here and read about the safety and well-being of Jewish students—that clearly makes YOU uncomfortable. Is it the idea that Jewish students can be victims of discrimination and prejudice — is that what makes you so uncomfortable? To the point where you feel compelled to post here, unable to resist minimizing their experiences?”
Feel free to provide a rational answer to the silent reader — assuming you want them to believe you’ve made positive contributions to a blog about persistent discrimination against Jews, instead of the many deflections and “whataboutisms” that you’ve engaged in thus far.
(I, of course, expect no such thing from you, for reasons I have already explained)
More longwinded deflection from Haha who has yet to address the very simple point that this blog post’s conflation of political and religious beliefs is harmful for the reasons listed above.
It’s obviously easier for Haha to be the self-proclaimed comments police and accuse everyone Haha disagrees with of the very deflection that Haha clearly loves to engage in.
I’m sure Haha will be back with more ad hominen and deflection.
Oh please,
M wrote “Emerys – you miss the point. Jewish students are not proxies for Israel.”
And you responded, “I don’t encounter [antisemitism among critics of Israel] a lot”
So many people are saying that antisemitism is a serious problem., and your response basically boils down to “No, it’s not”
And you still haven’t answered any of the questions above.
Wow, using quotation marks and parenthesis to add your own words to what someone else has written. That’s not intellectually dishonest at all! (That’s sarcasm by the way since you seem to be unable to detect it)
Anyway thanks for the excellent demonstration of how fallacious your arguments are for the silent readers. It really is a great example of the ad hominem smears Israel’s supporters have resorted to. Seems like all they have left.
My goal was to expose your comments as problematic and unproductive. In my opinion, for the average reader, I have likely done so. Of course, I understand you disagree. Based on the tone of your writing, it sounds like these critiques have hit close to home. I’m content with that.
Haha wrote:
“My goal was to [not engage with what you had written, but to replace your words with my own to better create a straw man that I could rail against while pretending to quote you]”