Universities Have a Role in Fostering Positive Social Values in Society
Universities Have a Role in Fostering Positive Social Values in Society
A guest post by Dr. Hagit Arieli Chai, Hebrew Union College, USC.
We wish our readers happy High Holidays. We are pleased to share an essay by our circle member Dr. Hagit Arieli Chai, who reflects on the experiences of the past year and poses questions about the vulnerability of our institutions in the face of barbaric extremism and the role of the university in promoting positive values. Dr. Hagit Arieli Chai has previously published on our Substack (see here and here).
Universities Have a Role in Fostering Positive Social Values in Society
by Hagit Arieli Chai
During the last year, we witnessed the uprising of hatred against Jews on campuses across the USA. We have seen violence, disruption, intimidation, threats, and obstruction. We have heard calls to globalize the intifada—violence against civilians. What we have not seen is a willingness to engage in discussions on difficult issues. We have not seen openness to compromise. We have not seen intellectual exchange on our campuses—only the shouting of slogans.
The university has a role in fostering social and political values in society. Calling for the destruction of an entire country (“From the River to the Sea”), promoting violence (“The Only Solution—Intifada Revolution"), and advocating for divisive ideologies [Editors’ note: i.e., Critical Social Justice] contradict the values of open inquiry, respect, tolerance, and constructive dialogue that a university should uphold. Such rhetoric does not reinforce positive social values; rather, it undermine the principles of human dignity and peaceful engagement that are essential for a healthy academic environment and a functional democracy.
It is important for universities to question and challenge existing paradigms, but it is equally critical that they provide a thoughtful and constructive framework within which such challenges can be made and addressed. The university should not be an agent of disruption but a beacon of insight. The university should help cultivate a shared understanding of cultural, historical, and ethical frameworks that can offer grounding amidst the upheaval. The challenge is to balance the drive for critique with a commitment to maintaining and enriching the foundational values and knowledge that support a well-functioning society.
A university’s mission is not just to critique. While questioning and reforming social values, policies, and institutions are appropriate—and even desirable endeavors, universities also serve as centers of stability and continuity. They preserve and transmit valuable knowledge and culture, foster a sense of community, and support students in their personal and professional growth.
To carry out their main mission—the search for truth—universities must be committed to fostering open dialogue and supporting diverse viewpoints. This commitment does not imply passivity in the face of hatred against Jews. Universities have an ethical obligation to stand up against hate and discrimination. Neutrality is conveniently invoked by administrators to justify inaction, which leads to tacit acceptance or indifference to the harm that such ideologies cause. Taking a stand against hate and racism aligns with the values of fairness and justice that universities should uphold.
The shouting crowds of campus protesters with covered faces are not seeking the dialogue or intellectual engagement that one might expect in an academic setting. Rather, they are exploiting the permissiveness of the campus environment to express hatred through disruption, intimidation, and vandalism. This is evident from the chaotic and disturbing scenes we witnessed last year, which led USC to take the necessary steps of restricting campus access and securing Tommy Trojan during the new wave of protests [Editors’ note: we described the 9/12/24 protest here.]. When unchecked, this hate leads to violence and brutality, as happened, for example, on the UCLA campus.
People who want to present to the world beliefs they sincerely hold do it in the open. In contrast, the face-covered groups calling for intifada [Editors’ note: see here], spreading false narratives, and refraining from civil discourse, discredit themselves. Their behavior resembles warriors wielding swords, waiting for the opportunity to strike, rather than participants in thoughtful, open dialogue.
Israel is in a state of deep suffering. The attack on October 7th was one of the most devastating acts of terrorism in recent history, documented and shared by the perpetrators with shocking pride. The October 7th raid on innocent civilians was the culmination of many factors. For years, residents of the southern kibbutzim had grown accustomed to missile attacks. They would hear the sirens, head to shelters, wait a few minutes, and return to their daily lives. According to journalist Tzvi Yehezkeli, Hamas exploited this complacency. They took advantage of this sense of normalcy, only to set the shelters ablaze. Is this same tactic now being used by protestors on campuses?
The protests, with their grotesque slogans, masks, exhibitions of terrorist symbols, etc., normalize these extreme behaviors, desensitizing us to the hatred and destructiveness of the protesters.
Imagine walking onto a campus where, in the name of free speech, you encounter a “From Coast to Coast America Will Be Free” demonstration featuring prominent symbols of Al-Qaeda. Is this acceptable? If not—why then is “From the River to the Sea”?
The terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks had Western appearances and educational backgrounds that helped shield their intentions from suspicion. Some came from Hamburg, where they were raised in immigrant families from Morocco and Egypt, and some were university students. They were able to fly under the radar because their profiles seemed legitimate. While the information about these individuals was available, the crucial element missing was proper interpretation. Consider the ring leader Mohammed Atta. A zealous Islamist, he voiced virulently antisemitic and anti-American views, such as the belief that a global Jewish movement centered in NYC controlled world finance and the media. Why did Atta raise no red flags?
In the 90s, following the collapse of the USSR, the world paused to question its future. The Western democracies accepted that capitalism is pragmatically better than socialism, but are we truly prepared for the challenges democracy brings? The disintegration of the Soviet Union ended decades of Cold War tensions and led to the emergence of new states with market economies. This period fostered optimism about democracy and liberalization, creating the belief that global interconnectivity would promote peace and stability. Former Eastern Bloc countries transitioned to democratic systems, and the US emerged as the world’s sole superpower, driving the idea of a “new world order” based on capitalist ideals.
As societies became increasingly media-driven, the public's focus shifted towards consumer culture, often prioritizing entertainment over critical engagement with global issues. The rise of the 24-hour news cycle and social media created an environment where sensationalism sometimes overshadowed nuanced reporting. This trend has contributed to collective complacency about the real threats that emerged in the post-Cold War landscape.
Terror groups exploited the vulnerabilities of a globalized world. Networks established during the wave of globalization facilitated the ability of terror groups to recruit, communicate, and coordinate attacks across borders. The emphasis on economic interdependence and cultural exchange failed to adequately address the ideological and political motivations driving terrorism. The attacks of September 11, 2001, starkly highlighted this oversight, revealing how interconnected, yet fragile, global security had become.
Anarchy thrives when societies allow breaches of laws and rules to become normalized. If we continue to tolerate violations on campus and become accustomed to them, we risk creating an environment where anarchy and terror find their opportunity. This complacency reflects a dangerous misconception that our intelligence services and defenses (such as police and armed forces) make us immune to terror.
When facing terror organizations that operate outside civilized norms, the rules of engagement are fundamentally different. Terror groups exploit gaps in our understanding that exist because Western societies, which are grounded in democratic paradigms, struggle to fathom the extreme brutality of such acts (e.g., beheading, sexual violence, the burning of people alive).
It is noteworthy that young women from across America are demonstrating in support of Hamas, Iran, and Palestine [Editors’ note: see also “Hysterics for Hamas” by Heather Mac Donald].
Why would such privileged and educated women, the heirs to the #MeToo movement and to Second and Third Wave Western feminism, cheer for male rapists and male killers, arguably the most blood-thirsty and sadistic misogynists this side of Ghenghis Khan? Why side with Islamist barbarians who have jailed, tortured, and executed their own women over a slipped Islamic veil, and who would forcibly convert their Western female admirers to Islam, veil them as well, and coerce them into polygamous marriages? [“Why Are Women in America Cheering for Hamas and Iran?” Phyllis Chesler in ISGAP Flashpoint]
So, these arrogant keffiyeh-wearing youngsters across America, demonstrating in city centers, erecting tents on campuses, cursing, threatening, spraying slurs on buildings, cornering and chasing down Jewish students, resist being removed and physically fight the police. Why are they zealously defending people from whom they are far removed in terms of their beliefs, values, and ideas?
They are privileged political opportunists posturing as victim-pariahs who feel that they are “occupied” by Western patriarchy.
Do these educated daughters of affluence understand that were they to express any views deemed dissident in Gaza, Teheran, or Kabul or, were they to announce that they were “queer” or gay, (which is how some of these activists identify themselves), that they would be instantly honor killed? [“Why Are Women in America Cheering for Hamas and Iran?” Phyllis Chesler in ISGAP Flashpoint]
Is there any Muslim country whose people do not want to escape and free themselves from dictatorship? Are there Muslim countries that value freedom, equality, and justice the way Western democracies do? Can you imagine what a Palestinian state would be like? On what their national and human values would be based? Do the protesters in keffiyehs understand what they are protesting for?
The author writes that commentators have "failed to adequately address the ideological and political motivations driving terrorism."
The reason for this is that Islamic terrorism derives from Islam, which is held sacrosanct by government officials who claim that "Islam means 'peace'." This in turn derives from the secular idea that religion is a private matter of personal belief and worship. This was not true historically in Christendom, where it was a mandatory society-wide cultural belief and practice. It was also political, leading to wars between Christian countries and Islamic countries, and to bitter wars between Protestants and Catholics. Islam is a total society culture and politics, including foreign policy.
For Palestinians, the war with Israel is a religious, holy war (jihad). Islam requires Muslim supremacy, certainly against the despised Jews. Arab culture, based on Bedouin tribal culture, defines Arab men as warriors, and they dearly wish for revenge for the many wars they have shamefully lost to the Israelis.
Until we can honestly discuss what is really going on here, we will be left in confusion and misleading propaganda.
Very well said!