In the wake of a series of anti-Semitic incidents—including one student protestor who yelled “Death to the Jews!” at a group of pro-Israel students—the City University of New York (CUNY) commissioned an outside investigation. The resulting report, argues K.C. Johnson, points to ways faculty and administrators can combat anti-Semitism while maintaining an uncompromising commitment to freedom of speech. It also brings to light many troubling happenings:

[The report] correctly noted [that] “die-ins, mock checkpoints, and the SJP [Students for Justice in Palestine] banner may offend some, but the First Amendment does not permit a public university to take action against them.” . . . Quite apart from any constitutional problems, attempts to suppress student speech make no tactical sense for pro-Israel advocates. College authority to channel the speech of student organizations inevitably would be used to harm pro-Israel student groups, which on most campuses enjoy scant faculty support. Moreover, limiting the rights of anti-Israel activists allows them to shift the discussion away from their extreme beliefs, from which most people outside academia appropriately recoil, to a different debate about protecting student civil liberties for all, [thus] doing SJP’s work for the organization by allowing [its] activists to position themselves as victims.

Seeking to undermine free speech, moreover, distracts from previously unrevealed, deeply disturbing findings from the CUNY report. At Brooklyn College, for instance, an English professor “called Israelis assassins and baby killers.” A history professor, teaching a general-education course on Western civilization, skipped the Holocaust, informing the class that “you all know this story.” Another professor used class time to discuss negotiations of the new faculty contract, and remained silent as a student claimed that “the administration was run by Zionists.” . . .

Faculty control over what occurs in the classroom is near-sacrosanct. But professors shouldn’t be skipping the Holocaust in Western-civilization surveys or replacing course content with discussions about the faculty contract—much less standing idly by as a student hijacks the (already inappropriate) subject matter to launch an attack on “Zionists.” . . . Most CUNY students are on campus to learn and therefore are badly served when professors . . . abuse their authority in the classroom.

The report also provides a needed reminder that administrators should exercise their own free-speech rights when they encounter anti-Semitic conduct among their student body. . . . Given the imbalanced campus environment on matters related to Israel, administrators also need to be more proactive. Faculty—especially untenured faculty—who invite pro-Israel speakers must be protected from retaliation . . . and campuses should adopt the University of Chicago’s free-speech principles as an affirmation that despite the generally unfavorable climate, pro-Israel speech by students will be welcomed.

Analyzing the recent direct Iranian attack on Israel, and Israel’s security situation more generally, Michael Oren looks to the 2015 agreement to restrain Iran’s nuclear program. That, and President Biden’s efforts to resurrect the deal after Donald Trump left it, are in his view the source of the current crisis:

Of the original motivations for the deal—blocking Iran’s path to the bomb and transforming Iran into a peaceful nation—neither remained. All Biden was left with was the ability to kick the can down the road and to uphold Barack Obama’s singular foreign-policy achievement.

In order to achieve that result, the administration has repeatedly refused to punish Iran for its malign actions:

Historians will survey this inexplicable record and wonder how the United States not only allowed Iran repeatedly to assault its citizens, soldiers, and allies but consistently rewarded it for doing so. They may well conclude that in a desperate effort to avoid getting dragged into a regional Middle Eastern war, the U.S. might well have precipitated one.

While America’s friends in the Middle East, especially Israel, have every reason to feel grateful for the vital assistance they received in intercepting Iran’s missile and drone onslaught, they might also ask what the U.S. can now do differently to deter Iran from further aggression. . . . Tehran will see this weekend’s direct attack on Israel as a victory—their own—for their ability to continue threatening Israel and destabilizing the Middle East with impunity.

Israel, of course, must respond differently. Our target cannot simply be the Iranian proxies that surround our country and that have waged war on us since October 7, but, as the Saudis call it, “the head of the snake.”