Two important questions lie hidden in the controversy about what the presidents of Harvard, MIT and The University of Pennsylvania said or did not say.
But first, let’s clarify the immediate controversy.
The Harvard president could not speak to the issues at hand because Harvard has no policy about bullying or harassment except those related to sexual misconduct and discrimination (advancement opportunities and access to jobs etc), policies also held by MIT and Penn.
Penn’s main statement about harassment, squeezed into its robust statement about sexual harassment, under ‘Respect for others in the Workplace’ is, “Penn is committed to the principle of non-discrimination and does not tolerate conduct that constitutes harassment on any basis, including sexual, racial, ethnic, religious, or gender harassment.”*** Given the site context of where this statement sits, it seems, again, that it is made only in the context of sexual misconduct and discrimination.
Penn also has the most robust statement that, “[It] is also committed to the principles of free inquiry and free expression and to creating an environment that encourages the active exploration and exchange of ideas. The University discrimination and harassment policies are not intended to impair this freedom, nor will they be permitted to do so. Prohibited discrimination and harassment, however, are neither legally protected expression nor the proper exercise of academic freedom.” So while Penn has a clear statement about free inquiry, it does not have a robust statement about harassment.
All three institutes of higher learning also have clear statements about how claims regarding sexual harassment and discrimination will be investigated.
With Penn’s inadequate harassment statement, that may or may not include other forms of harassment (and bullying), and the absence of the same at Harvard, MIT has the most extensive statements about harassment, beyond sexual harassment and discrimination. They state the following.
“All members of the MIT community are expected to conduct themselves with professionalism, personal integrity, and respect for the rights, differences and dignity of others. These standards of personal conduct “apply to all communications, whether oral, written, or in gestures.”**
“Harassment is defined as unwelcome conduct of a verbal, nonverbal or physical nature that is, sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a work or academic environment that a reasonable. person would consider intimidating, hostile or abusive and that adversely affects an individual’s educational, work, or living environment.”
“Examples of possibly harassing conduct: public and personal tirades; deliberate and repeated humiliation; deliberate interference with the life or work of another person; the use of certain racial epithets; deliberate desecration of religious articles or places; repeated insults about loss of personal and professional competence based on age.
“Harassment that is based on an individual’s race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, religion, disability, age, genetic information, veteran status, or national or ethnic origin is not only a violation of MIT policy but may also violate federal and state law…”
These are thoughtful and nuanced statements. Given these statements, it is hard for a reasonable observer to conclude that statements like ‘kill the Jews’ or, ‘from the river to the sea’ (a reference to killing all jews), or similar statements toward Muslims and Palestinians are not, ‘racial epithets’ and ‘oral, [with] gestures’ communications, and that recipients would not consider intimidating, hostile or abusive’.
Two questions.
- Given the non-existence of or vague statements about harassment and bullying by two universities and a third that has the adequate statements but refuses to apply them in the case of Jews, under what circumstances would they apply them (all three, if the other two catch up)?
- The presidents all stated their “[commitment] to the principles of free inquiry and free expression and to creating an environment that encourages the active exploration and exchange of ideas.” What have they done to create the absolutely critical places of safety for all persons to engage in, no doubt at times heated, exchange of perspectives they uphold?
The more important question, obscured by the odd defence of non-existent, inadequate or ignored statements about ‘harassment and bullying’ against an issue that is beyond harassment and bullying, why was there such reluctance to apply the good words of MIT, the inadequate words of Penn and the non-existent words of Harvard to Jews? I would ask the same question if the situation were reversed and Palestinians were being ignored under similar circumstances.
So what is it? A myopic, non-nuanced version of history? Simple ignorance and an emotional reaction because one side is spilling more blood than the other? Is there a hint of the ancient atavistic suspicion of Jews as the ‘Other’ against whom the rest humanity must protect ourselves?
Perhaps these three presidents need to read a few books from both sides of this horrifying reiteration of vendettas and violence. Perhaps they ought to take a few courses with teachers who do their best to be balanced and as accurate as possible at the same time. Perhaps they can invite significant thinkers from both sides to have an ongoing series of debates/conversations, and create that environment of, yes debate, but also finding the means to help as many people as possible on both sides to see the other as human. These acts would be of the highest calibre for what universities should be doing, not just pumping out degree holders.
**Italicized words are the authors’ emphasis.
***There is a second statement about harassment immediately above this one. but it is only in the context of “…the administration of its admissions, financial aid, educational or athletic programs, or other University-administered programs or in its employment practices.”