Imagine you share an Instagram post about an upcoming protest, but none of your hundreds of followers like it. Are none of your friends interested in it? Or have you been shadow banned?

Social media can be useful for political activists hoping to share information, calls to action and messages of solidarity. But throughout Israel’s war on Gaza, social media users have suspected they are being censored through “shadow banning” for sharing content about Palestine.

Shadow banning describes loss of visibility, low engagement and poor account growth on platforms like Instagram, TikTok and X (formerly Twitter). Users who believe they are shadow banned suspect platforms may be demoting or not recommending their content and profiles to the main discovery feeds. People are not notified of shadow banning: all they see is the poor engagement they are getting.

Human Rights Watch, an international human rights advocacy non-governmental organisation, has recently documented what it calls “systemic censorship” of Palestine content on Facebook and Instagram. After several accusations of shadow banning, Meta (Facebook and Instagram’s parent company) argued the issue was due to a “bug” and “had nothing to do with the subject matter of the content”.

I have been observing shadow bans both as a researcher and social media user since 2019. In addition to my work as an academic, I am a pole dancer and pole dance instructor. Instagram directly apologised to me and other pole dancers in 2019, saying they blocked a number of the hashtags we use “in error”. Based on my own experience, I conducted and published one of the very first academic studies on this practice.

Why platforms shadow ban

Content moderation is usually automated – carried out by algorithms and artificial intelligence. These systems may also, inadvertently or by design, pick up “borderline” controversial content when moderating at scale.

Photo by Ian Hutchinson on Unsplash

Most platforms are based in the US and govern even global content according to US law and values. Shadow banning is a case in point, typically targeting sex work, nudity and sexual expression prohibited by platforms’ community guidelines.

Moderation of nudity and sexuality has become more stringent since 2018, after the introduction of two US laws, the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (Fosta) and Stop Enabling Sex Trafficking Act (Sesta), that aimed to crack down on online sex trafficking.

The laws followed campaigns by anti-pornography coalitions and made online platforms legally liable for enabling sex trafficking (a crime) and sex work (a job). Fearing legal action, platforms began over-censoring any content featuring nudity and sexuality around the world, including of legal sex work, to avoid breaching Fosta-Sesta.

Although censorship of nudity and sex work is heralded as a means to protect children and victims of non-consensual image sharing, it can have serious consequences for the livelihoods and wellbeing of sex workers and adult content creators, as well as for freedom of expression.

Platforms’ responses to these laws should have been a warning about what was to come for political speech.

Social media users reported conversations and information about Black Lives Matter protests were shadowbanned in 2020. Now journalistic, activist and fact-checking content about Palestine also appears to be affected by this censorship technique.

Platforms are unlikely to admit to a shadow ban or bias in their content moderation. But their stringent moderation of terrorism and violent content may be leading to posts about Palestine that is neither incitement to violence nor terror-related getting caught in censorship’s net.

How I proved I was shadow banned

For most social media users, shadow banning is difficult to prove. But as a researcher and a former social media manager, I was able to show it was happening to me.

As my passion for pole dancing (and posts about it) grew, I kept a record of my reach and follower numbers over several years. While my skills were improving and my follower count was growing, I noticed my posts were receiving fewer views. This decline came shortly after Fosta-Sesta was approved.

It wasn’t just me. Other pole dancers noticed that content from our favourite dancers was no longer appearing in our Instagram discovery feeds. Shadowbanning appeared to also apply to swathes of pole-dancing-related hashtags.

I was also able to show that when content surrounding one hashtag is censored, algorithms restrict similar content and words. This is one reason why some creators use “algospeak” editing content to trick the algorithm into not picking up words it would normally censor, as seen in anti-vaccine content throughout the pandemic.

Check if you are being shadow banned

TikTok and Twitter do not notify users that their account is shadow banned, but, as of 2022, Instagram does. By checking your “account status” in the app’s settings, you can see if your content has been marked as “non-recommendable” due to potential violations of Instagram’s content rules. This is also noticeable if other users have to type your full profile name for you to appear in search. In short, you are harder to find. In August 2023, X owner Elon Musk said that the company was working on a way for users to see if they had been affected by shadow bans, but no such function has been introduced. (The Conversation has contacted X for comment.)

The ability to see and appeal a shadow ban are positive changes, but mainly a cosmetic tweak to a freedom of expression problem that mostly targets marginalised groups. While Instagram may now be disclosing their decisions, the effect is the same: users posting about nudity, LGBTQ+ expression, protests and Palestine are often the ones to claim they are shadow banned.

Social media platforms are not just for fun, they’re a source of work and political organising, and a way to spread important information to a large audience. When these companies censor content, it can affect the mental health and the livelihoods of people who use it.

These latest instances of shadow banning show that platforms can pick a side in active crises, and may affect public opinion by hiding or showing certain content. This power over what is visible and what is not should concern us all.

Carolina Are, Innovation Fellow, Northumbria University, Newcastle

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

He continued, “It is not a war between soldiers and soldiers. It is a war between a well equipped army on the one hand and women and children on the other.”

Lula is not the first world leader to compare Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to Hitler over his actions in Gaza — Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan made the same comparison.

Since Hitler murdered six million Jews, the comparison is hurtful. It could also be rejected on grounds of scale. Hitler not only killed all those European Jews, he also killed 6 million Poles. And consider Ukraine: “of the 41.7 million people living in Ukrainian Soviet Republic before the war, only 27.4 million were alive in Ukraine in 1945. Official data says that at least 8 million Ukrainians lost their lives: 5.5 – 6 million civilians, and more than 2.5 million natives of Ukraine were killed at the front. The data varies between 8 to 14 million killed, however, only 6 million have been identified.”

The Times and the Sunday Times Video: “Brazil’s Lula likens Gaza war to Holocaust”

While Netanyahu’s policies are not like those of Nazi Germany in almost any respect if we consider absolute numbers and consider the scale of killing, Lula is not completely in error if we consider more qualitative aspects of history and look to European fascism as a whole and not just the German National Socialists (who were peculiar in many ways).

FIRST: KEEPING PEOPLE STATELESS ON THE BASIS OF ETHNICITY

For instance, the Fascists stripped citizenship from millions of people and made them stateless, without the rights that come from a direct relationship to a state of their own. Chief Justice Earl Warren defined citizenship as “the right to have rights.”

Hitler took citizenship from German Jews but also from the Roma and from persons of African heritage.

Netanyahu keeps 5.5 million Palestinians in the occupied territories stateless and without citizenship. So his policies in this narrow regard are similar to those of the National Socialists in the 1930s. In essence, the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are living under something like the Nuremberg Laws. Their establishments and homes are attacked by militant Israeli squatters with impunity in a sort of rolling Kristallnacht.

Note that by Israeli law, Israeli squatters in the occupied Palestinian territories have all the citizenship rights of other Israelis. So the lack of rights on the West Bank is not territorial. It is by ethnicity.

Netanyahu has boasted about derailing the Oslo Peace Accords and presents himself as the only one who can prevent a Palestinian state from being established. He reiterated his opposition to any international diplomatic track that leads to a Palestinian state just this weekend.

SECOND: DEPRIVATION OF BASIC INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

Another feature of Fascism, underlined by Robert Paxton, is the elimination of individual rights. Israel’s regime over the occupied, stateless Palestinians fully demonstrates this feature. Palestinians can be arrested under “administrative detention” without charge or trial or habeas corpus and held for months or years. We have seen a treatment of detained Palestinians in Gaza that constitutes war crimes. It is alleged that forms of torture are practiced.

THIRD: TOTAL WAR

Netanyahu’s Gaza campaign has demonstrated a reckless disregard for the lives of innocent noncombatants, who make up nearly all of the nearly 30,000 people so far killed, and who have been deprived of domiciles and sufficient food and potable water by the Israeli military.

Total war was adopted as a military strategy by fascist states, according to historian Alan Kramer. One academic summarized his argument: “Kramer indicated a very interesting question regarding the specificity of the kind of war implemented by fascist regimes during the thirties and the forties, characterized by its genocidal nature and opened, according to him, with the colonial war launched by Italy in Abyssinia [Ethiopia] in 1935. Kramer underlined that the specificity of this particular way of waging war typical of fascism would define itself by the final elimination of the «distinction between combatants and non-combatants», pointing how in the six years of this conflict between 350.000 and 760.000 Ethiopians were killed, victims of an asymmetric war based on the overwhelming use of air force, chemical weapons and politics of collective terror against any sign of real or imagined resistance.”

The fascist way of war eliminates the distinction between combatants and non-combatants and wreaks mass death on the latter to achieve military aims. There doesn’t seem much doubt that Netanyahu is waging total war on Gaza and Israel’s President Isaac Herzog and a whole plethora of Israeli officials have repeatedly insisted that there are no innocent civilians in Gaza. This, even though half of Gaza’s population consists children.

Total war easily leads to genocide, of course, which is why the International Court of Justice has found it at least plausible that Netanyahu is waging a genocide in Gaza, attempting to destroy a people in part or in whole because of who they are.

So, no, Netanyahu is not a Hitler. But, yes, his policies bear a strong resemblance to those of inter-war Fascism.

Oh, and there’s also a first American edition of E.M. Forster’s novel Howards End. On the flyleaf, she inscribed this note: “Stolen by Suzanne Gordon.” As the bookplate on the cover’s interior indicates, it was indeed stolen from (or at least never returned to) The Free Library of Philadelphia. When did this bit of larceny occur? It would certainly have been after she married my dad in 1949, when she acquired his surname Gordon, so probably sometime in the 1950s. The good news is that the Philadelphia library still has several copies of Forster’s book on its shelves today, along with audio books and film DVDs of the work. The bad news is that it’s among the many books on the American Library Association’s list of most frequently banned classics.

Of course, the all-American penchant for banning books didn’t begin in the Trump era. Just ask almost anyone who lived through the Red Scare days of the 1950s (not to speak of the first Red Scare of 1917-1920). But the last few years have seen a remarkable acceleration of attempts to keep certain books off the shelves of public and school libraries. The American Library Association reports an almost four-fold increase in the number of banning attempts between 2003 (458) and 2022 (1,269), most of that increase coming between 2020 and 2022. That this new passion for book banning coincides with the rise of Donald J. Trump, MAGA Republicanism, and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s failed “anti-woke” presidential campaign is no accident.

The Most Benign Institution

Name any public institution — the U.S. military, say, or a county welfare office – and it’s bound to have its negative aspects. Maybe you appreciate that the military is one of the most racially integrated bodies in the country. At the same time, perhaps you’re distressed by its recent turn to U.S. universities as a locus for the development of A.I.-powered autonomous lethal weaponry. Perhaps you appreciate that your county welfare office helps people get access to benefits they’re entitled to like SNAP (formerly food stamps) and health insurance. At the same time, you may not admire the mental and emotional burden the welfare system places on people working to secure those benefits or the racial animus and disrespect they may encounter in the process.

I’d like to argue that there is, however, one institution that’s almost entirely benign: the public library. As I wish one could say about our medical system, it does no harm (though many right-wingers disagree with me, as we shall see).

What could be more wonderful than a place that allows people to read books, magazines, and newspapers for free? That encourages children to read? That these days offers free access to that essential source of information, entertainment, and human connection, the Internet? It’s even a place where people who have nowhere to live — or who are regularly kicked out of their homeless shelters during daylight hours — can stay dry and warm. And where they, too, can read whatever they choose and, without spending a cent — no small thing — use a bathroom with dignity.

Free public libraries first appeared in this country in the late 1700s or early 1800s, depending on how you parse that institution’s defining characteristics. It’s generally agreed, however, that the first dedicated, municipally funded public library in the world opened in 1833 in Peterborough, New Hampshire. A century earlier, Benjamin Franklin had founded the Philadelphia Library Company, a private, subscription-based outfit, funded by members who paid annual dues.

Buy the Book

While members of such libraries would indeed pay annual dues or even buy shares in them, circulating libraries — some operated by publishing companies, others as stand-alone profit-making businesses — charged the public rent on specific volumes. At a time when books were very expensive, circulating libraries made them available to people who couldn’t afford to own the ones they wanted to read. Such libraries were especially attractive to female readers, the main audience for the expanding universe of fiction in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Private-Public Partnerships

I’m lucky to live less than a block from a branch library located in a classical-style two-story stone building. With almost floor-to-ceiling deep-set windows, thick walls, and a hushed interior, the Mission branch of the San Francisco Public Library is an island of peace in the choppy waters of my vibrant neighborhood. In many ways, the Mission is contested territory. Here, the children and grandchildren of Latin American immigrants compete for cultural and commercial space with a new group of migrants — the tech workers who love the Mission District for its edginess, but whose comparatively high earnings are pushing up rents for older residents and, in the process, sanding off some of those edges.

Still, the library serves us all without fail. It has children’s story hours, a bank of Internet-connected computers, and shelves and shelves of books, including a substantial selection of titles in Spanish. Many mornings, I see snaking lines of tiny kids waiting for the library to open so they can listen to stories and exchange last week’s books for a new selection.

Public branch libraries as we know them might never have existed if it weren’t for the munificence of a single obscenely rich private donor. Like more than 2,500 others built worldwide, my branch is a Carnegie library. It was constructed in 1916 with funds provided by the Scottish-American robber baron and steel magnate Andrew Carnegie. Like every community seeking Carnegie money, San Francisco had to satisfy his specific requirements. It had to demonstrate the need for a public library. It also had to guarantee that it would provide an appropriate building site, salaries for a professional staff, operating funds once it was open, services for free, and (perhaps most importantly) use public money (in addition to any private donations) to support the library. Carnegie believed that communities would only value and maintain their libraries if they were collectively supported by taxpayers. He also thought that libraries belonged in local neighborhoods where potential readers would have easy access to them, so early on he stopped funding the main libraries in cities in favor of neighborhood branches.

Almost 1,700 of these, along with about 100 university libraries, were built in the United States with his money between 1886 and 1929. He also funded them around the world from Canada and Great Britain to Mauritius, Fiji, and New Zealand, among other places. In the Jim Crow South, Carnegie did nothing to oppose racial segregation but did at least apply the same approach and standards to the construction of libraries in Black neighborhoods of segregated cities as in white ones.

In an age when today’s robber barons are investing their money in fantasies of personal survival, whether through cryogenic freezing or riding out climate change in luxurious private bunkers in New Zealand or Hawaii, it’s hard not to have a certain nostalgia for Carnegie’s brand of largesse. I don’t know whether Peter Thiel’s New Zealand “apocalypse insurance” redoubt will still be there a century from now, but my library is already more than 100 years old and I wouldn’t be surprised if it were still offering whatever the equivalent of books might be, assuming no ultimate apocalypse has occurred, 100 years from now.

Threatening the Benign Institution

You might think that an apparently harmless public good like a library would have no enemies. But in the age of Trump and his movement to Make America Grotesque Again, there turn out to be many. Some are “astroturf” outfits like the not-even-a-little-bit-ironically named Moms for Liberty. M4L, as they abbreviate their name, was founded in 2021 in Florida, originally to challenge Covid-era mask mandates in public schools. They’ve since expanded their definition of “liberty” to include pursuing the creation of public school libraries that are free of any mention of the existence of LGBTQ people, gender variations, sex, or racism. In effect, the freedom they are seeking is liberation from the real world.

You won’t be surprised to learn that M4L supported Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s 2022 and 2023 “Don’t Say Gay” laws, which outlaw any discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity in public schools, while making it extremely easy for parents or other citizens to demand the removal of books they find objectionable from school libraries. Copycat laws have since been passed in multiple states, including Tennessee where a school district banned MAUS, the bestselling Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel about the Holocaust, from its curriculum, thanks to eight now-forbidden words and a drawing of a naked mouse. (In doing so, it also drove the book back onto national bestseller lists.)  

One Florida school district chose to play it especially safe, not limiting itself to removing commonly banned books like Push by Sapphire, the 1970s anti-drug classic Go Ask Alice, and Ann Frank’s Diary of a Young Girl. According to CBS News, “Also on the list are ‘Merriam-Webster’s Elementary Dictionary,’ ‘The Bible Book,’ ‘The World Book Encyclopedia of People and Places,’ ‘Guinness Book of World Records, 2000,’ ‘Webster’s Dictionary and Thesaurus for Students,’ and ‘The American Heritage Children’s Dictionary.’” I guess the book banners don’t want to risk kids encountering any words they disapprove of in a dictionary.

Contemporary book-banning efforts extend beyond school libraries, where reasonable people might differ (a little!) about what books should be available to children, to public libraries, where book banners seek to keep even adults from reading whatever we choose. EveryLibrary, an anti-censorship organization, keeps a running total of active “legislation of concern” in state legislatures that relates to controlling libraries and librarians. They maintain a continually updated list of such bills (the number of active ones changed just as I was exploring their online list). As of today, they highlight 93 pieces of legislation moving through legislatures in 24 states as varied as Idaho and Rhode Island.

In 2024, they are focusing on a number of key issues, including “bills that would criminalize libraries, education, and museums (and/or the employees therein) by removing long-standing defense from prosecution exemptions under obscenity laws and/or expose librarians to civil penalties.” In addition to protecting libraries and their employees from criminal prosecution for stocking the “wrong” books, they are focusing on potential legislation that could restrict the freedom of libraries to develop their collections as they wish, as well as bills that would defund or close public libraries altogether. Sadly, as those 93 active bills indicate, in all too many states, libraries are desperately under attack.

Legislation pending in Oklahoma offers an interesting example of the kinds of bills moving through statehouses around the country. The proposed “Opposition to Marxism and Defense of Oklahoma Children Act of 2024,” unlike some bills in other states, is not concerned with excising specific offerings from Oklahoma’s library shelves. Rather, it focuses on a key organization, the American Library Association (ALA), which, since 1876, has existed to promote and support librarians. One of the ALA’s most important activities is the accreditation of library schools, where future librarians study their craft.

Oklahoma’s “Opposition to Marxism Act” would outlaw all cooperation with the ALA, including a previously existing requirement that public librarians have degrees from ALA-accredited library schools. In this context, “opposing Marxism” means opposing the main professional organization for librarians and its Oklahoma affiliate. I imagine this has something to do with the ALA’s support for “Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion,” which any MAGA adherent will assure you is just another code word for Marxism.

Like Mother Like Daughter?

I’ve loved libraries since I was a small child. I used to regularly ride my bike to our local branch and return home with a basketful of books. With my mother’s permission to borrow books from the adult section, I had the run of the place. She brooked no censorship in my reading life (although I do remember her forbidding me to see the movie West Side Story because she thought it would be too sad for me).

I seem to have inherited my mother’s regrettable tendency to hold onto library books past their due dates. Or at least I blame her for that terrifying evening when I was perhaps 10 years old and heard the doorbell ringing. My mother called me downstairs to greet the two people on our doorstep. They were probably college kids but, to me at the time, seemed all too grown-up. They were there on a mission: to reclaim seven overdue library books. Fortunately, I knew where in my messy bedroom each one could be found and was able to round them up in a few minutes.

These days, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of my overdue books reclaimed that night wouldn’t even be found on library shelves in some states. (After all, I do remember that my mother introduced me to E.M. Forster when I was still pretty young.)

The tendency to hold onto books past their due date has, alas, continued to this day. Just this morning I received an email reminding me that I needed to return one that was squirreled away in my backpack. So, off I trundled to my neighborhood library, silently thanking Andrew Carnegie and the good people of San Francisco that I still have a library to go to and promising myself not to let any MAGA-minded fools take it away.

Copyright 2024 Rebecca Gordon

Via Tomdisptach.com

We all know how that story turns out. Media often functions as a propagandistic tool that turns the truth on its head. The best example of this upside-down image can be observed in the dichotomous journalism of Western media on Palestine and Ukraine. 

By legal and international definitions, Gaza and Ukraine bear many unquestionable similarities to one another — from suffering daily air strikes to the bombardment of civilian targets and the obstruction of humanitarian aid by an authoritarian power that seeks control over both respective territories. In Ukraine’s case, the West and its media newsrooms instantly and unanimously came to the support of Ukrainians and the vilification of Russia. Yet, in Palestine’s case, Western leaders, supported by their legions of media outlets, have practically condemned everyone from Hamas to Iran but have continuously refused to hold Israel accountable for any of its actions. 

In actuality, many Western media outlets keep on insisting that Ukraine and Israel are the victims that share similar aggressions from unlawful and heinous invaders. This narrative is sponsored by many Western leaders such as the United States President Joe Biden and the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who have both attempted to paint Ukraine and Israel as two democracies in a struggle against evil. How is Western media creating this narrative and why is it invested in spreading it?

In Western countries, much of the public has been taken in by this media narrative, especially during the first stages of the war on Gaza. According to Amer Aroggi, a Palestinian residing in Ukraine, while Ukraine and Gaza were both under air strikes from Russia and Israel, many Ukrainians showed their support and empathy towards Israel instead of Gaza. Aroggi argues that it was due to “massive propaganda.” 

While it seems incredible that media propaganda could distort reality to such an extent, the conclusion also seems unavoidable. In an interview on Sky News, Palestinian journalist Yara Eid confronted the Sky News reporter for her double standard and selective reporting on topics such as the aggression committed daily against Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank. There is nothing new about Western media’s tunnel vision. Back in 2008, throughout Israel’s Cast Lead operation, a study found that although Palestinians died at a rate “106 times greater than Israelis”  “the New York Times engaged in a practice of media bias that resulted in coverage of only 3% of Palestinian deaths in the headlines and first paragraphs.”

Other features of Western media coverage are decontextualization and overgeneralization. In his second interview on the Piers Morgan Show, Egyptian comedian Bassem Youssef criticized Western media on two major grounds — first, for their failure to contextualize events in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Without this context, Palestinians come across as simple aggressors who abruptly choose to attack Israel. Second, he lambasted the press for their attempt to depict Palestinians as mere generic Arabs who should seek refuge in other Arabic countries like Egypt and Jordan, denying them their peoplehood.

Piers Morgan Uncensored Video: “Piers Morgan vs Bassem Youssef Round 2 | Two-Hour Special Interview”

Yet another characteristic of journalistic malpractice has to do with sanitizing language. In 2021, many journalists came together to publish an open letter condemning American news outlets for their refusal to use terms such as “apartheid”, “ethnic cleansing”, and “genocide” to describe Israeli actions in Palestine. According to the letter, experts agree that these terms are appropriate to describe what’s happening in Palestine, but editors avoid them.

And no wonder. Chris McGreal at The Guardian reported this week that the American cable news channel CNN has for years essentially allowed the Israeli government to censor and shape its coverage of the Mideast, to the extent that professional correspondents working at the channel privately accuse it of “journalistic malpractice.”

The Hill Video: “CNN Staffers REVOLT Over ‘PRO-ISRAEL’ Slant Amounting to ‘JOURNALISTIC MALPRACTICE’: Report”

It isn’t only CNN. At the end of 2023, almost 1500 journalists from different newsrooms signed another open letter condemning the killing of journalists in Gaza by the Israeli military and the censorship and biased coverage of the war on Gaza by Western media. In this letter, journalists blame Western media outlets for biased reporting and spreading misinformation that, in their words, have “undermined Palestinian, Arab and Muslim perspectives, dismissing them as unreliable and have invoked inflammatory language that reinforces Islamophobic and racist tropes.”

All this isn’t even to take into account the way media shapes perceptions by simply not reporting important stories. Israeli indiscriminate bombing can kill hundreds of Palestinians in Gaza in a 24-hour period but this news may simply be ignored on channels such as CNN. If only 50% of Americans feel that Israel has gone too far in killing some 27,000 Palestinians after an attack that left a little over 1100 Israelis dead, it is in part because the 50% who do not feel this way watch channels such as Fox and CNN and have not seen the daily, intensive carnage, which is clearly visible on social media outlets such as TikTok favored by younger viewers.

These journalistic practices have distorted the conversation surrounding Gaza. But to say so still begs the question, why? What is the reasoning behind backing Ukraine and demonizing Palestinians?

To answer this question, we must revisit Chomsky and Herman’s book, where they claim that the Western media is conditioned to “Concentrate on the victims of enemy powers and forget about the victims of friends.” Hence, media outlets are not just reporters of what’s happening but “are subjective co-creators of the shifting global order in a bigger game of geopolitics”.

So as Eva Połońska-Kimunguyi points out,

“When the aggressor is Russia, the pronounced enemy of the liberal West, the media message generates anger at the atrocities committed, sympathy and solidarity towards the victims. When the liberal West drops bombs on Middle Eastern and African towns and populations, information silence descends on the media”.

In this case, when Israel, the ally of the US and the West in the Middle East commits war crimes, editors at the big media corporations seem to feel that their job is to paper over these atrocities to protect an ally. Let’s not forget that old video showing President Joe Biden proclaiming in the Senate “[Israel] is the best 3 billion dollar investment [the United States] made…were there not an Israel, the United States would have to invent an Israel to protect our interests in the region (Middle East).”

By Michael Schwalbe | – (Commondreams.org ) – A sad fact of jurisprudence in an unequal world is that good laws created to promote justice are often used perversely by the powerful to thwart justice. Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is a prime example. Originally intended to combat discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, the law is misused today to quash pro-Palestinian speech and speech critical of Israel on university campuses.

Protection from discrimination under Title VI extends to individuals and groups defined by shared ancestry, or by citizenship or residency in a country with a dominant religion or distinct religious identity. On university campuses, responsibility for enforcement of Title VI, except for complaints citing discrimination based on religion, falls to the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of Education.

Under the law, complaints are warranted when students in a protected category experience severe, pervasive, and persistent harassment that creates a hostile environment that impedes their ability to learn. Examples of what the OCR considers harassment include the use of ethnic slurs, mocking of foreign accents, speech, or names, and acts of physical intimidation linked to ethnic stereotypes.

If an OCR investigation finds that a university has failed to prevent systematic discrimination or allowed severe, pervasive, and persistent harassment to flourish, the university can lose federal funding. Which means that Title VI has teeth; it can help ensure that all students have a fair opportunity to learn. This is the justice-seeking goal of the law.

Unfortunately, Title VI has also been weaponized to silence speech that supports Palestinian rights or criticizes Israel. This has been going on for at least twenty years, and is happening now more than ever. Since October 7, 2023, the Education Department’s OCR has received 33 complaints alleging discrimination based on shared ancestry involving a college or university, according to Inside Higher Ed. Many, though not all, of these complaints have come from partisans of Israel.

These complaints typically cite instances of pro-Palestinian speech or speech critical of Israel as “creating a hostile environment for Jewish students,” and therefore as violations of Title VI. Examples of incidents cited in complaints include accusing Israel of practicing apartheid, advocating for boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel, showing the film “Israelism,” hosting speakers who criticize Israeli state policies, protesting speakers who represent the Israeli government, students chanting pro-Palestinian slogans at rallies, and offhand classroom remarks by professors critical of Israel.

Students should never suffer discrimination or harassment based on their race, ethnicity, or national origin. That’s the problem Title VI was meant to address. For this purpose, it remains a valuable tool.

An important thing to know about these complaints is that, after full investigation, they are consistently dismissed.

The principal reason for dismissal is that the incidents cited as “harassment” are in fact obvious instances of permissible free speech. As the presiding judge wrote in a decision resolving a 2011 case at UC-Berkeley, “A very substantial portion of the conduct to which [the complainants] object represents pure political speech and expressive conduct, in a public setting, regarding matters of public concern, which is entitled to special protection under the First Amendment.”

In 2021, the OCR strongly asserted that Title VI enforcement shall not “diminish or infringe upon any right protected under Federal law or under the First Amendment.” And to its credit, the OCR has generally abided by this principle over the years, ultimately rejecting complaints that target free speech. But these failures haven’t stopped partisans of Israel from continuing to file suits under Title VI. They carry on because prompting an investigation is consequential.

University administrators understandably want to avoid the reputational damage that can come from being subject to a civil rights investigation, and so they will often accept resolution agreements that admit no fault but make promises to do better at responding to any campus occurrences that could be construed as antisemitic, anti-Israel, or as making Jewish students feel unsafe.

The Young Turks Video: “Pro-Palestinian Protestors Report Chemical Spray Attack At Columbia University”

In the shadow of these agreements, administrators often begin to aggressively monitor campus activities that might draw further negative attention. Administrators may then also look for ways to mute the speech—meaning pro-Palestinian speech or speech critical of Israel—that they see as causing the trouble. Common tactics of suppression include requiring “balance” when pro-Palestinian speakers are brought to campus, insisting that organizers of pro-Palestinian events pay prohibitively high fees for security, and, in extreme cases, suspending pro-Palestinian student groups, making it impossible for them to hold events on campus.

The threat of reputational damage can likewise affect other members of a campus community. Students, faculty, and staff may be deterred from speaking out in support of Palestinian rights, criticizing Israel, or joining groups that support Palestinian liberation, for fear of being labeled antisemitic, accused of discrimination, or involved in a civil rights suit. So even without repressive administrative action, free speech and association in support of Palestinian rights can be chilled.

We don’t need to guess about the motives of pro-Israel bullies. Proponents of the complaint-filing strategy can be surprisingly unabashed about what they’re up to. For instance, Kenneth Marcus, founder and current leader of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, explained how the strategy is supposed to work.

“These [Title VI cases],” Marcus wrote in a 2013 op-ed in The Jerusalem Post, “even when rejected expose administrators to bad publicity. … [I]t hurts them with donors, faculty, political leaders and prospective students.” Students, too, are a target, Marcus admitted. “We are creating a very strong disincentive for outrageous behavior by students. … Needless to say, getting caught up in a civil rights complaint is not a good way to build a resume or impress a future employer.” Could the intent to suppress speech be any clearer?

As noted, the strategy of misusing Title VI to chill speech critical of Israel is being pursued with new vigor. In the current political climate, this is hard for the Department of Education to resist. But resist it should, as Palestinian rights organizations have long urged, or else free speech in the university stands to be greatly harmed. A case now pending at UNC-Chapel Hill suggests how expedited disposition of politically motivated Title VI complaints could help to prevent this harm.

The complaint against UNC was filed in December, 2023, after a New York-based attorney, David E. Weisberg, learned of two incidents on the North Carolina campus. In one incident, a pro-Palestinian speaker on a seven-person panel titled, “No Peace Without Justice: A Round-Table Talk on Social Justice in Palestine,” praised the ingenuity displayed by Hamas fighters on October 7 and refused to apologize for the violence used to break out of what she called, referring to Gaza, a “concentration camp.”

The other incident allegedly occurred in October, 2023, in a class on rhetoric and public issues. According to the complaint, the professor remarked on one occasion that Israel and the United States “do not give a shit about international law or war crimes.” Later, amidst Israel’s assault on Gaza, the professor reportedly described Israel as “a clearly fascist state committing genocide under the guise of it supposedly being the only democracy in the Middle East.”

No doubt these blunt remarks might unsettle students who embrace the glowing image of itself that Israel tries to project to the world. But having one’s beliefs challenged is part of what higher education ought to entail. And remarks critical of a state, remarks protected by principles of free speech and academic freedom, cannot fairly be seen as actionable harassment under Title VI.

Weisberg, the complainant, invoked the contentiously broad definition of antisemitism advanced by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) to label these incidents antisemitic, further alleging that the incidents created a hostile educational environment for students of Jewish descent who “entertain positive feelings toward the modern State of Israel.” The Department of Education’s OCR agreed to investigate.

Even though the OCR expressly states that agreeing to investigate a complaint is not a judgment of a complaint’s merits, doing so nonetheless appears sufficiently validating to give a legal bully a partial victory. In the UNC case, the incidents cited in the complaint are protected expressive speech, and by no means amount to severe, pervasive, and persistent harassment. As with similar complaints that have been filed over the years, this one will be investigated and almost certainly dismissed.

No doubt these blunt remarks might unsettle students who embrace the glowing image of itself that Israel tries to project to the world. But having one’s beliefs challenged is part of what higher education ought to entail.

For now, though, the university must deal with the investigation, and administrators will feel pressure to resolve the complaint, perhaps agreeing—as on a previous occasion—to be more alert and responsive to anything on campus construable as antisemitic, no matter how far-fetched such a construal might be. Campus supporters of Palestinian rights will also be subject to closer scrutiny as the investigation proceeds, and perhaps find it harder to hold events and draw an audience. The goal of the bullying strategy will thus be achieved. Other campuses where investigations are underway will be similarly affected.

An expedited process for handling Title VI complaints of this kind is long overdue. Instead of accepting new complaints that mirror the bogus complaints that have been rejected again and again—complaints that point to nothing but clear instances of free speech and offer no credible evidence of harassment or discrimination—the OCR should quickly review and summarily reject these frivolous complaints as attacks on free speech that impede everyone’s ability to learn.

Real discrimination is of course intolerable and calls for corrective action. Students should never suffer discrimination or harassment based on their race, ethnicity, or national origin. That’s the problem Title VI was meant to address. For this purpose, it remains a valuable tool.

But the law can also be misused, as partisans of Israel have done, to protect Israel from criticism and stifle pro-Palestinian voices. This isn’t ultimately about the safety of Jewish students, many of whom are already critical of Israel and Zionism. It is, rather, about keeping the ideologies that sustain oppressive social arrangements safe from the corrosive effects of critical education. To keep this liberatory possibility alive, we should resist threats to free speech, and be especially wary when they are disguised as efforts to fight discrimination.

Michael Schwalbe

( Florida Phoenix ) – From threatening students’ free speech on college campuses to making it easier for powerful people to sue for defamation, lawmakers have been filing bills in 2024 that are bad, according to Florida’s First Amendment Foundation.

The foundation is tracking the proposals and fighting back, hoping to get lawmakers to fix the problems in the bills or ditch them entirely.

“Our representatives need to know that you think these are bad bills and should not be passed,” said Bobby Block, executive director of the First Amendment Foundation.

“This is our fight every year.” Block said in a 2024 Legislative Action document.

Though a handful of bills are “pretty good,” Block describes the 2024 legislation as “many dreadful bills.”

He adds in the document:

“Some of these bills – especially the ones trying to make it easier for rich and powerful people to sue their critics for what they write or say online, on the airways, and in print – are among the biggest threats to free expression in the nation. They join other bills that would criminalize student’s right to protest and would turn university administrators into secret police, requiring them to report students to the Department of Homeland Security. Others would try again to exempt the identities of law enforcement officers who hurt or kill suspects in the line of duty, claiming they are victims, not civil servants doing their job in your name.”

Here’s a list from the First Amendment Foundation categorized as “bills we are dedicated to fighting.” They will be tracking those bills throughout the two-month session.

HB 85: Pub. Rec./State Banks and State Trust Companies.

“This bill seeks to create an exemption that would hide information, including shareholders and applications for new state banks and financial institutions, shielding the public from knowing who is behind them and stinging them. This also can shield these institutions from public scrutiny.”

HB 465: Postsecondary Education Students

This bill threatens students’ free speech rights by banning certain student groups from college campuses. It also threatens to increase college tuition or remove scholarship options from students who engage in certain pro-Palestinian speech. 

SB 470: Postsecondary Education Students

This is the companion bill to HB465. This bill threatens students’ free speech rights by banning certain student groups from college campuses. It also threatens to increase college tuition or remove scholarship options from students who engage in certain pro-Palestinian speech. 

HB 757: Defamation, False Light, and Unauthorized Publication of Name or Likenesses

We fought this bill last year, and now it is back in the House and Senate. This bill would decrease the free speech rights of media, journalists, broadcasters, radio, and religious publications by making it easier for powerful public figures to sue for defamation.

SB 1086: Defamation 

This bill is similar to HB757 and SB1780 in that it seeks to make it easier for powerful individuals to sue for defamation. It also seeks to reverse Floridian judicial precedent by introducing a “false light” standard for defamation … any of these would be a blow for free speech and free press … they would be a boon for trial lawyers and would turn Florida into the libel tourist destination of America. They are blatantly unconstitutional.

HB 1605: Crime Victim’s Rights

This bill redefines who is defined as a victim under Marsy’s Law, written to include “law enforcement officers, correctional officers, or correctional probation officers who use deadly force in the course and scope of their employment or official duties.”

HB 1607: Pub. Rec./Crime Victim’s Rights

Last year, the FL Supreme Court ruled that Marsy’s Law does not protect the identity of police officers involved in fatal shootings from disclosure. This bill seeks to reverse that decision and exempt the identities of police officers who claim to be crime victims. 

SB 1780: Defamation, False Light, and Unauthorizes Publication of Name or Likenesses

This is the companion bill to HB 757 that would decrease the free speech rights of media, journalists, broadcasters, radio, and religious publications by making it easier for powerful public figures to sue for defamation. It also seeks to reverse 60+ years of judicial precedent by changing the actual malice standard. 

Another category, “Opposed Legislation” are “bills we encourage you to write in opposition to your representatives about.”

Those bills include HB 395, Protection of Historical Monuments and Memorials, which “penalizes any individual, elected official, or city that attempts to or supports a movement to remove a historical monument.”

Another bill, HB 999, Gender Identity Employer Practices, “limits speech by prohibiting government workers or employees … from using preferred pronouns or names of themselves or of coworkers.”

 

Diane Rado

Diane Rado has covered state and local government and public schools in six states over some 30 years, focusing on policy and investigative stories as well as legislative and political reporting. She is married to a journalist and has three adult children.

 

Published under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Florida Phoenix

Featured image: Digital, Dream/ Dreamland 3.0 .

(The Conversation) – Israel has emerged as one of the world’s leading jailers of journalists, according to a newly released census compiled by the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists.

Each year, the committee releases a snapshot of the number of journalists behind bars as of December 1 2023 was the second highest on record with 320 in detention around the world.

In a small way, that is encouraging news. The figure is down from a high of 363 the previous year.

But a troublingly large number remain locked up, undermining press freedom and often, human rights.

China takes out unenviable top spot

At the top of the list sits China with 44 in detention, followed by Myanmar (43), Belarus (28), Russia (22), and Vietnam (19). Israel and Iran share sixth place with 17 each.

While the dip in numbers is positive, the statistics expose a few troubling trends.

As well as a straight count, the Committee to Protect Journalists examines the charges the journalists are facing. The advocacy group found that globally, almost two-thirds are behind bars on what they broadly describe as “anti-state charges” – things such as espionage, terrorism, false news and so on.

In other words, governments have come to regard journalism as some sort of existential threat that has to be dealt with using national security legislation.

In some cases, that may be justified. It is impossible to independently assess the legitimacy of each case, but it does point to the way governments increasingly regard information and the media as a part of the battlefield. That places journalists in the dangerous position of sometimes being unwitting combatants in often brutally violent struggles.

China’s top spot is hardly surprising. It has been there – or close to it – for some years. Censorship makes it extremely difficult to make an accurate assessment of the numbers behind bars, but since the crackdown on pro-democracy activists in 2021, journalists from Hong Kong have, for the first time, found themselves locked up. And almost half of China’s total are Uyghurs from Xinjiang, where Beijing has been accused of human rights abuses in its ongoing repression of the region’s mostly Muslim ethnic minorities.

The rest of the top four are also familiar, but the two biggest movements are unexpected.

Iran had been the 2022 gold medallist with 62 journalists imprisoned. In the latest census, it dropped to sixth place with just 17. And Israel, which previously had only one behind bars, has climbed to share that place.

That is positive news for Iranian journalists, but awkward for Israel, which repeatedly argues it is the only democracy in the Middle East and the only one that respects media freedom. It also routinely points to Iran for its long-running assault on critics of the regime.

The journalists Israel had detained were all from the occupied West Bank, all Palestinian, and all arrested after Hamas’s horrific attacks from Gaza on October 7. But we know very little about why they were detained. The journalists’ relatives told the committee that most are under what Israel describes as “administrative detention”.

17 arrests in Israel in less than 2 months

The benign term “administrative detention” in fact means the journalists have been incarcerated indefinitely, without trial or charge.

It is possible that they were somehow planning attacks or involved with extremism (Israel uses administrative detention to stop people they accuse of planning to commit a future offence) but the evidence used to justify the detention is not disclosed. We don’t even know why they were arrested.

Video added by Informed Comment, Democracy Now! “Israel’s War on Journalists”

Israel’s place near the top of the Committee to Protect Journalists’ list exposes a difficult paradox. Media freedom is an intrinsic part of a free democracy. A vibrant, awkward and sometimes snarly media is a proven way to keep public debate alive and the political system healthy.

It is often uncomfortable, but you can’t have a strong democratic system without journalists freely and vigorously fulfilling their watchdog role. In fact, a good way to tell if a democracy is sliding is the extent of a government’s crackdown on the media.

This is not to suggest equivalence between Israel and Iran. Israel remains a democracy, and Israeli media is often savagely critical of its government in ways that would be unthinkable in Tehran.

But if Israel wants to restore confidence in its commitment to democratic norms, at the very least it will need to be transparent about the reasons for arresting 17 journalists in less than two months, and the evidence against them. And if there is no evidence they pose a genuine threat to Israeli security, they must be released immediately.

Peter Greste, Professor of Journalism and Communications, Macquarie University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

At that event, President Gay fell into the trap of accepting Representative Elise Stefanik’s radical mis-characterization of two expressions that have a long history within Palestinian struggles for freedom—“intifada,” and the phrase “from the river to the sea,”—as calls for genocide against Jews, and then, when pressured, failed to state unequivocally that such speech was a violation of Harvard’s rules of conduct. That is, when pressed to state that pro-Palestinian perspectives, wherein the use of these terms is commonplace, should be forbidden from campus, she wavered, perhaps momentarily confused by her free speech concerns. It was this failure to denounce the illegitimacy of pro-Palestinian speech and activism—glossed as “genocidal” by Stefanik, and accepted as such by all present, including Gay—that ultimately spelled her downfall.

Embed from Getty Images
Supporters of Palestine gather at Harvard University to show their support for Palestinians in Gaza at a rally in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on October 14, 2023. (Photo by Joseph Prezioso / AFP) (Photo by JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images).

The main reason liberal pundits have downplayed the salient role of what could be called “anti-Palestinianism” in sealing Dr. Gay’s fate is that, unlike the attack on liberal education, it cannot be framed as a partisan issue. The termination of her presidency did not provoke any outcry among Washington Democrats largely because they also have embraced the position expressed in Rep. Stefanik’s rhetoric, namely, that anti-Zionism (i.e. expressed in calls for an end to the Israeli occupation) is equivalent to antisemitism or, in other words, that calls for Palestinian liberation, for full legal and political rights for Palestinians, constitute a murderous threat to exterminate Jews.

For clarification, let me note here that intifada, as used by Palestinians in recent history, simply means “uprising,” and more specifically, an uprising against the oppressive conditions of the Israeli occupation; “from the river to the sea (Palestine will be free),” for its part, is chanted at pro-Palestinian demonstrations, not as a call for genocide of Jews, but a demand that everyone inhabiting this geography have equal rights and freedoms. That scholars of the region have vehemently and publicly criticized the misuse of these terms within US political discourse has not hindered pro-Israeli pundits from rehashing such mistranslations.

Stefanik and co. have now demonstrated how the political class’s unwavering support for pro-Israeli perspectives and policies can be weaponized against the university, including its commitments to racial equality. The current chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, Representative Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, who originally organized the congressional hearings on antisemitism on college campuses, now plans to expand the scope of her investigation into antisemitism on campus to other elite schools, giving particular attention to the way DEI programs may have adversely affected Jewish students.

The congressional group, under Foxx’s leadership has already demanded that Harvard make available a list of “posts by Harvard students, faculty, staff, and other Harvard affiliates on Sidechat and other social media platforms targeting Jews, Israelis, Israel, Zionists, or Zionism.”

And who will be the primary victims of this congressional campaign targeting critics of Israeli occupation? Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims, of course, will find themselves directly in the crosshairs of this witch-hunt. But—and, for the critics of the liberal university, this is the genius of the Republican plan—so will the Black and Brown folk who have played a dominant role in urging universities to adopt DEI concerns and commitments. Why? Because the underlying values and principles informing DEI initiatives are radically incompatible with the ethnonationalism of the Zionist project. Indeed, if there are three terms that are completely foreign to Israeli political discourse on the Palestinian people they are Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

The Young Turks Video: “Right-Wing Activist BRAGS About His Scheme To Oust Harvard President Claudine Gay”

Will the Democratic majority in congress be able to counter this Republican assault on liberal education and on its recently bolstered commitments to anti-racism? Unlikely. As the congressional ambush of the presidents of Harvard, U Penn, and MIT demonstrated, the Democrat’s near total devotion to the cause of defending Israel, however egregious its violation of international laws, renders them largely incapable of defending the academic institutions they claim to value. Their blind dedication (“subservience” is probably a more accurate term) to Israel prevents them from calling out the weaponization of the antisemitism charge for what it is, a well-planned and orchestrated effort to silence any criticism of Israel’s decades-long brutalization of Palestinians.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that antisemitism is not a real issue in the US today, simply that its use to tarnish the struggle for Palestinian justice is based on a profound and dangerous political lie. As Bernie Steinberg, a previous executive director of Harvard Hillel, has written: “As a leader in the Jewish community, I am particularly alarmed by today’s McCarthyist tactic of manufacturing an antisemitism scare, which, in effect, turns the very real issue of Jewish safety into a pawn in a cynical political game to cover for Israel’s deeply unpopular policies with regard to Palestine.”

The fact that the Democrats are willing to throw their commitment to racial equality under the bus for the sake of demonstrating their infinite devotion to Israel suggests that such a commitment may have been rather thin to begin with. Can support for Israel’s apartheid system (as it has been described by most reputable human rights organizations), not to mention for the war crimes currently being committed in Gaza (again, the designation comes from those same human rights organizations), be squared with a politics of racial justice in the US? When push comes to shove, which is where we are now, then it is obvious the answer is clearly no.

• Abdelkader Sinno
• Indiana University
• Samia Halaby
Rahul Shrivastav, Provost and Executive Vice President
provost@indiana.edu
 
Rick Van Kooten, Executive Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
rvankoot@indiana.edu . . .
Dear Provost Shrivastav and colleagues:
 
We write on behalf of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA) and its Committee on Academic Freedom to express our alarm at Indiana University’s suspension of Associate Professor of Political Science and Middle Eastern Studies Abdulkader Sinno as well as its abrupt cancellation of a retrospective of the work of renowned Palestinian artist Samia Halaby. These actions constitute a clear and egregious violation of the principles of academic freedom and a betrayal of the mission of our institutions of higher education.  
 
MESA was founded in 1966 to promote scholarship and teaching on the Middle East and North Africa. The preeminent organization in the field, the Association publishes the prestigious International Journal of Middle East Studies and has nearly 2,800 members worldwide. MESA is committed to ensuring academic freedom and freedom of expression, both within the region and in connection with the study of the region in North America and outside of North America.
 
Professor Sinno has served as faculty advisor to several IU student organizations, including the Palestine Solidarity Committee, which invited Miko Peled, an Israeli-American veteran of the Israel Defense Forces and a peace activist, to speak on campus on 17 November 2023. The administration sought to have the event cancelled, but it was held without incident as planned. The next day Associate Vice President for Public Safety Benjamin Hunter filed a complaint against Professor Sinno. The subsequent investigation by Vice Provost Carrie Docherty focused on errors allegedly made by Professor Sinno in filling out the room reservation form for the event at which Peled spoke. Almost a month later, the university suspended Professor Sinno from all teaching and mentoring duties for the spring and summer terms. In a 15 December 2023 letter to Professor Sinno informing him of the suspension, Vice Provost Docherty asserted that she had “serious concerns about the effect your behavior may have on members of the campus community. These concerns are enhanced by the potential impact that your inattention to university compliance requirements has on the students you influence in the classroom and in your role as a student organization faculty advisor.”
 
Suspending a tenured faculty member for alleged errors in routine paperwork is an absurdly harsh sanction; but it also appears that in suspending Professor Sinno, who by all accounts has been an exemplary scholar, teacher and member of the IU community, administration officials ignored or violated the university’s own procedures. According to university policies on Academic Appointee Responsibilities and Conduct and the Policy on Faculty Disciplinary Procedures, Vice Provost Docherty was obligated to file a complaint against Professor Sinno with the Faculty Misconduct Review Committee, which would then recommend whether to sanction him, rather than acting on her own. According to a statement by the university’s AAUP chapter, both Docherty and IU Senior Associate General Counsel Andrea Newsom failed to follow proper procedure even after they had been called upon to do so. By choosing to ignore proper procedure and acting arbitrarily, not only were faculty rights violated but university leadership made it impossible to have a serious discussion about how to balance campus security with the protection of free speech and academic freedom. Indiana University has thereby made a mockery of its avowed commitment to faculty governance and due process.
 
We are equally dismayed by the decision of IU’s Eskenazi Museum of Art to cancel the first American retrospective survey of the work of Samia Halaby. Though the event had been planned for three years, the director of the museum informed Halaby in December 2023 that her social media posts expressing support for Palestinians subjected to Israeli violence in Gaza and elsewhere had caused concern among some museum employees. A university spokesman offered the incoherent and implausible claim that “academic leaders and campus officials canceled the exhibit due to concerns about guaranteeing the integrity of the exhibit for its duration.”
 
Indiana University’s justifications for its arbitrary actions in both these instances are not convincing. We understand that the university may feel under pressure from outside forces seeking to silence the expression of opinions with which they do not agree, including a threat by Representative Jim Bank (R-IN 3rd District) in November 2023 to cut the university’s federal funding if it did not deal with alleged incidents of antisemitism, by which he seems to have meant criticism of Israel’s actions and policies. We believe that the proper response to such threats and pressures, especially in these fraught times, is to resolutely defend the free speech and academic freedom of faculty, students and staff.  Your university has not only signally failed to do this, but has also inexcusably violated its own procedures for addressing alleged infractions by faculty.
 
We therefore call upon you to immediately rescind Professor Sinno’s suspension and express your administration’s intention to adhere to university disciplinary policies and to the shared governance they require. We further call on you to do everything possible to ensure that the retrospective survey of Samia Halaby’s art open as originally planned in February 2024. Finally, we call on you to publicly and vigorously reiterate your commitment to protect the constitutionally protected right to free speech as well as the academic freedom of all members of the Indiana University community. 
  
We look forward to your response.
 
Sincerely,
 
Aslı Ü. Bâli 
MESA President
Professor, Yale Law School
 
Laurie Brand
Chair, Committee on Academic Freedom
Professor Emerita, University of Southern California