On Friday, campus police arrested nineteen students at California’s highly selective Pomona College when they stormed the offices of the college president during an anti-Israel protest. Meanwhile, Harvard decided to give around-the-clock protection to the “apartheid wall”—a row of posters with anti-Israel slogans—just a few months after it told Jewish students not to leave a menorah on the quad overnight since it could be vandalized.

The lesson from these two cases is that universities have considerable leeway in how they deal with the wave of vicious anti-Israel activism on their campuses, and with the anti-Semitism and harassment of Jewish students that have accompanied it. And when university administrations fail, there are ways that the government can step in without infringing on students’ or colleges’ freedom of speech. Peter Cordi spoke with three First Amendment experts about why this is so. The bottom line was expressed by Jeffrey Robbins:

Robbins explained that the matter comes down to two main principles; one being that speech is protected, and the other being that the speech and conduct “is in fact intended to hurt Jews and to drive a wedge between them and their identity.” He noted that there is a point when otherwise protected speech creates a hostile environment and can subject people or schools to liability under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. . . .

Robbins said the response to disruptions of university or college events “should be a no-brainer,” and argued that “if a university or college is serious about dealing with this stuff, then those people [disrupting events and classes] should be expelled.”

When anti-Semitic incidents go unpunished, Robbins said, “This implies something nefarious; that universities and colleges lack the guts or the will when it comes to Jewish students to enforce the rules that you just know they would not have to be pressured into enforcing if it were other groups.”

When universities who have been warned but have not addressed the issue are sued and have to “cough up damages,” he argued, “You may see them acting in a totally different way. And that is the kind of lawsuit which it seems to me needs to be explored. Quickly.”

Yesterday, the Iranian foreign minister flew to Geneva to meet with European diplomats. President Trump, meanwhile, indicated that cease-fire negotiations might soon begin with Iran, which would presumably involve Tehran agreeing to make concessions regarding its nuclear program, while Washington pressures Israel to halt its military activities. According to Israeli media, Iran already began putting out feelers to the U.S. earlier this week. Aviram Bellaishe considers the purpose of these overtures:

The regime’s request to return to negotiations stems from the principle of deception and delay that has guided it for decades. Iran wants to extricate itself from a situation of total destruction of its nuclear facilities. It understands that to save the nuclear program, it must stop at a point that would allow it to return to it in the shortest possible time. So long as the negotiation process leads to halting strikes on its military capabilities and preventing the destruction of the nuclear program, and enables the transfer of enriched uranium to a safe location, it can simultaneously create the two tracks in which it specializes—a false facade of negotiations alongside a hidden nuclear race.