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.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.