Academic boycotts targeting ideas, individuals, and institutions deemed problematic are no longer just in vogue for faculty. This illiberal and anti-intellectual tactic has now been adopted by students—presumably taking a cue from faculty and administrators—to cancel faculty who hold views they disagree with.
I encountered this personally during the most recent course interview week at Sarah Lawrence College, during which I learned that several groups—like the Sarah Lawrence Socialist Coalition and the Sarah Lawrence Review—decided that because I support Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself, my lectures will be corrupted and therefore should be boycotted.
During interview week, professors hold Zoom sessions to discuss their course plans and engage with prospective students—a course-shopping practice that started during the pandemic. This year, several leftist students, intent on canceling me and boycotting my courses—I’m teaching classes on Polarization and Presidential Leadership—resorted to privately messaging many of the prospective students in my Zoom room. These factually inaccurate and deliberately provocative messages went unnoticed by me during the session, as I was focused on sharing syllabi and other course-related information. It wasn’t until after the session that one of the students who received a message showed it to me, and I became aware of the situation. The next day, my classes, which are typically oversubscribed with waitlists, were not full—a stark contrast, especially during an election year. The message—posted below—which falsely stated that I tweeted a comment conflating “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) advocates with Nazis, read:
Screenshot of the message obtained by Minding the Campus
Cancel culture, as we know it, mostly occurs through social media, which anyone with an internet connection can view. While that’s bad enough, this tactic of directly messaging students is a chilling evolution of cancel culture that threatens speech, expression, learning, and open inquiry.
The culture of vocal, organized, and illiberal forces is now driving students away from courses these groups find objectionable. Unlike larger, more diffuse schools like Pace University or New York University, smaller residential schools like Sarah Lawrence College—where everyone knows everyone and reputations are critical—face amplified risks. When students are directly messaged about a boycott, it clearly signals that enrolling in my class could be risky. Such a culture is the antithesis of a true collegiate education. It is nearly impossible to stand against a mob that has declared someone persona non grata. While protesting a professor in the public sphere is one thing, directly targeting and approaching students through multiple channels raises the stakes, significantly increasing the intimidation for those who refuse to fall in line.
These dynamics of coercion and forced behavior at a small college like Sarah Lawrence were painfully laid out by Interfaith leader Eboo Patel, who recounted the power and problem of groupthink in his experience at a 2019 “Difference in Dialogue” program on our campus. A student group called the Diaspora Coalition deliberately disrupted his event. Patel recalled, “Sixty students stood up as a collective, raised their fists in the air, and declared that they were taking over the space. One by one, they began reading statements of protest from their smartphones. Each statement followed the same formula.”
Patel spoke with some students after the disrupted program and documented a far too common trend, particularly on the left: a tendency to demand ideological purity, forcing the community into conformity and self-censorship. One student protestor told Patel that the Diaspora Coalition did not fully represent her in both substance and style and that in her attempts to support minority identities, she had been led to take part in “things that violate [her] own identity, including rudeness to teachers and other educational leaders.”
When Patel asked her why a student would support the Diaspora Coalition’s manifesto even if they did not feel correctly represented, the student said there “was a strong culture of talking about minority identities on campus … but only in ways that emphasized one’s marginalization. And there was a palpable fear of breaking the mold.” Moreover, students who challenged or questioned the approach “risked being ‘Sarah Lawrenced’ — a particular form of cancellation on the college campus.”
It’s hard to imagine a clearer sign of a broken campus culture than simply using the college’s name to refer to efforts to cancel and silence students. Yet Patel’s chronicle of the fear of cancellation is not unique to Sarah Lawrence.
Numerous reports have found that students are afraid to challenge their peers due to reputational consequences, and these dynamics are being exploited by the Socialist Coalition at Sarah Lawrence. What is notable, too, is that while this case is on the ideological left, it’s not just conservative students who feel compelled to keep quiet, either. Leftists and moderates also feel bullied and threatened into silence. Students of all persuasions censor themselves out of concern not just for their reputation but their grades as well.
Another powerful and devastating illustration of these forces was just revealed at Haverford College. As a prospective student explained: ‘First, [I] had some great conversations with other students, but when they hear that I went to Jewish Day School and am a Jew, I get asked almost immediately if I support Israel, and if I’m Zionist, I either get blocked or ridiculed by other Haverford students who I barely even know.’
The social dynamics at Haverford are almost identical to that of Sarah Lawrence, where a professor described the situation on the Haverford campus as follows:
‘The social pressures on students here are just tremendous. And to hear stories from students, where people they thought were their friends, telling them that because they are Zionist, which means believing, just believing, in Israel’s right to exist, is a huge part of our identity… [they say] ‘I will not be your friend. We cannot be in connection. You got to reject that part of your identity.’ Now imagine if that kind of pressure on gays [or] students of color. However, that [antisemitism] seems to be completely socially acceptable among the students.’
After the tragic events of October 7th and the brutal killing and kidnapping by Hamas of many Israelis—some of whom remain in captivity—Sarah Lawrence College president Cristle Collins Judd did state that “there is not, nor can there be, any place for antisemitism or hate speech of any kind on our campus.” Despite this pronouncement by the head of the College, almost nothing has been done institutionally to address the hatred toward Jews, and the school is consequently facing a federal Title VI case involving its “persistent and pervasive” anti-Semitism. The ‘pervasive’ anti-Semitism at Sarah Lawrence is once again on full display, with students attempting to boycott me for my personal views about Israel—views that are deeply rooted in my faith and heritage. These actions not only harm students by stifling their ability to ask questions but also diminish their overall educational experience. All the while, such attacks and views among those on the Sarah Lawrence campus are not shared by many elsewhere.
A majority of Americans support Israel’s right to self-defense. Vice President Kamala Harris announced that she “will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself and … will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself,” noting that Israelis should “never again” go through the horror and “unspeakable” attacks of October 7th. Former President Trump likewise has supported Israel’s fight against Hamas.
Despite the misguided and extreme views held by the students who attempted to cancel me for being a Zionist Jew, what has occurred at Sarah Lawrence represents a serious threat to college students and to the broader concept of viewpoint diversity.
Students can inflict actual harm on their peers by depriving them of opportunities to learn and explore and by destroying their chances of gaining a liberal education. This will be a real challenge to combat and will be harder to address than simply breaking up illegal demonstrations and stopping organized violence. It requires changing the hearts and minds of students through a cultural shift towards real tolerance that may be impossible given the political activism and anti-Semitism preferred by so many faculty and administrators, permeating everything from dining halls to dorms along with campus centers and faculty offices.
However, higher education must take this challenge seriously if it is to survive and fulfill its liberal mission of helping all students find the truth, explore openly, and question without fear or threat.
Image by MTSOfan — Flickr
As an alum of Sarah Lawrence College, I applaud Prof. Abrams’s courage. As I wrote to the college’s president, Cristle Collins Judd, her treatment of the students who aim to restrict entry to Prof. Abrams’s courses contrasts with the college’s treatment of Jonathan Boesky and Marlon Lask in 1993. Lask laughed at a remark Boesky made about homosexuals, and both students were summarily thrown out of the college. Lask’s only offense wasn’t even speech: it was laughing. The incident is described here: https://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/13/nyregion/free-speech-woes-at-sarah-lawrence.html#:~:text=Mr.%20Boesky,%20who%20has%20since%20transferred%20to . Antisemites don’t receive parallel treatment. Given the history of Bronxville, NY, the college’s hometown, of restrictions against Jews, and a history of antisemitism at the college that stretches through the 1980s, one would think that the students’ gentlemen’s agreement would have triggered a response, but the college administration has done nothing. (See https://www.commentary.org/articles/harry-gersh/gentlemens-agreement-in-bronxvillethe-holy-square-mile/#:~:text=Harry%20Gersh%20describes%20a%20personal)
Sarah Lawrence College is in Yonkers, not Bronxville.
The address is 1 Mead Way, Bronxville, NY 10708
Professor Abrams, you may have a good case of defamation against the student or group who falsely accused you if you there are specifics (like the re-tweet) that can be proven. If you don’t have funds to pursue such a case, there are organizations that can help, such as FIRE.
So sorry to read this. Stay strong.
Excellent article and all support to you. It was nothing like this when I went to Yale 1992-96. We debated openly then went for pizza. Now my Jewish friends fear for their children’s safety. Thank you for your work.
Umm, not so fast, Ms. Smith. As a freshman in the fall of 1992 I was present when Robert Casey spoke at Yale. You should remember it, since if I recall correctly — it’s been a while — you gave a prebuttal speech to the crowd, an impressive achievement for a first-semester freshman. During Casey’s speech, one protester after another stood up and silently walked out of the room holding signs, choreographed to rudely distract attention from the speaker.
I think I know how you will respond: There is a world of difference between silently disrupting a speech by walking out with signs and yelling, bullying, and intimidating students through extortionate threats to their ability to participate in a community. Well, yes and no. At the time, I was shocked at the breach of basic courtesy. I expected adults to sit respectfully for the speech. I did not expect to see rude behavior which would never have been tolerated in my high school, and which my friends and I would never have imagined displaying. Rather than view adulthood as a reason to hold themselves to higher standards, your allies showed that they believed that being over eighteen and in the Ivy League meant that they were too important to be held back by pesky things like decorum. If you objected to your allies’ behavior I was unaware of it.
Standards of behavior like respectfully listening — or, if necessary, pretending to respectfully listen — are necessary for people to function in a diverse society, to coexist with people they don’t like. Once we discard the guidelines of civil behavior, civility goes downhill fast. Each cohort of students learned from its predecessors that civility was optional and embraced lower and lower standards. This is analogous to the broken windows theory that one unfixed broken window on a block leads to the block going downhill because the residents learn from example not to treat their neighborhood with respect. That night at Yale we took a step down the slippery slope.
The IDF has murdered over 40,000 civilians!
They are the New Nazis.
That is so stupid, for so many reasons.
IDF, in the course of doing business has been accused of killing 40,000 Hamas supporters.
Could it be that the business IDF is doing has a thing or three to do with the fondest desires of Hamas supporters?
Antisemitism is a nasty business and it gets nasty both ways.
Bullshyte.
It’s already been mathematically proven that Hamas is fabricating the body counts, not to mention combining combatant and civilian deaths. Not to mention that Hamas is hiding behind civilians in violation of every rule of civilized warfare, not to mention that a lot of the casualties are coming from either their own ordinance going off course or the sympathetic detonation of ordinance stored in places where it ought not have been, such as in hospitals.
If Israel wanted to exterminate the Palestinians, it could have — and would have by now.
QED killing civilians is not its intent.
George, all nations have a right to self-defense, and your indifference to the precipitating circumstances of IIsrael’s Gaza response suggests that you are the new Nazi. My guess, George, is that your reading on the history of Israel is limited or nonexistent.
I would be interested to hear what Prof Abrams thinks is the source of this rank antizionist antisemitism. It is not representative of the American people, or Kamala Harris, or even most young people. Where did this mass infection come from? Does it have a natural origin, or was there some sort of lab leak?
The infection has been breeding on American college campi for the past 30-40 years.
It’s coming out that a lot of it is (and likely has been) funded by Iran.
Jonathan, campus antisemitism is nothing new and goes back to Fichte and the early days of the German university, continuing on through historical school economist Gustav von Schmoller and later Werner Sombart’s association with the Nazis. Leading German academics of the early 19th century opposed Jewish emancipation and were linked to the antisemitic Hep-Hep Riots. In America, antisemitism crystalized in the Progressive era, and the Progressive-era universities restricted Jews, but then abated after World War II. Since then, the establishment of Israel associated Jews, in the mind of the left as well as right, with colonialism and in the case of the right, globalism. There has been an aggressive antisemitism at my former institution, Brooklyn College, in particular and CUNY in general for many years. Much of it has been imported through Islamic immigration and the strategy of “intersectionality.”: The left panders to the prejudices of Students for Justice in Palestine while SJP panders to gay liberation, etc. Muslim-Americans are much more likely to be antisemitic than other Americans, perhaps four times as likely. The left has contempt for religion, and like the right has identified Jews with the Rothschilds, seeing them as capitalists and conspirators. (This was one of Hannah Arendt’s explanations in The Origins of Totalitarianism.) This is common among the alt right. Antisemitism has been characteristic of the left since the days of Karl Marx. I read his “On the Jewish Question” in grad school and recall that it concludes that “the capitalist is the real Jew,” but much of Marx’s language is right out of the Liberty Lobby’s propaganda.
I think I know the answer, but has the AAUP had anything to say about this, and if so, what?
“Such a culture is the antithesis of a true collegiate education. It is nearly impossible to stand against a mob that has declared someone persona non grata”
There was a time when every other professor on campus would stand with such a professor as a matter of principle. It was a different story if he was embezzling or plagiarizing or sleeping with students or something — but merely saying something unpopular was viewed as “there but the Grace of God go I” and defended for that reason.
There was a time when the College President would have publicly supported such a professor — and the question I ask is who is REALLY behind the boycott. I doubt it is students, students aren’t that organized anymore, there has got to be either faculty or staff supporting this — at least standing in the background.
I’d be REALLY surprised if it was only students involved in this…
Solidarity with Prof Abrams. These student tactics are EXACTLY what happened in German Universities in the 1930’s, with Nazi students boycotting Jewish faculty. Reaction of the Sarah Lawrence leadership – awaited. The civic, political status of American Jews is under undreamed-of attack.
At the turn of the century, the German universities were considered the best in the world.
The Jewish professors came to America — Einstein went to Princeton, others went elsewhere, and they elevated American universities to a status that they hadn’t enjoyed before this. Americans no longer go to graduate school in Europe — in the 1920s, they did.
And the language of science went from German to English — to this day, all the major scientific papers are published in English. Prior to the 1930s, they had been published in German.
And as to American Jews, I again ask the question: “Exactly what part of ‘Kill the Jews’ do American Jews not understand?!?” Or as Bibi N put it: “Jews for Hamas is like Chickens for KFC…”
The difference between Germany circa 1933 and America circa 2024 is that we have a couple hundred years of a unified (small “d”) democratic culture. Germany didn’t, it had been unified via “blood & iron” only a half century earlier. Hopefully American voters will see which political party is behind this stuff — and not vote for them…
Shocking. Education is the exploration of facts and data in order to form each individual’s opinion. Opinions can be “pro” or “con” on any subject. But without the opportunity to learn, the process is flawed. It’s a shame the students don’t see this as a loss in their education perpetrated by a few students that focus on hate.