I’m writing to respond to Northwestern University President Michael Schill’s recent op-ed (“Why I reached an agreement with protesters at Northwestern,” May 10) in which he explains his decision to reach an agreement with anti-Israel protesters who had set up an encampment on Deering Meadow last month. While I appreciate Schill’s commitment to fostering dialogue and understanding, as an alumnus, I must express some concerns regarding the implications of his actions.
Scholarship by Northwestern’s faculty and the university’s well-regarded Center on Wrongful Convictions have long highlighted that actions and policies that disproportionately impact minorities should be subject to the highest levels of scrutiny. Why does this understanding not extend to protesters whose chants and signage focused not on a peaceful resolution to the war in Gaza but on delegitimizing and dismantling the world’s only nation-state for the Jewish people? If, as Schill explains, it’s because of the university’s deep commitment to free expression, this seems to be a very recent development.
This year, Northwestern University came 242nd out of the 248 colleges examined by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) in its annual College Free Speech Rankings. FIRE specifically highlights a speech code that chills free expression, a poor speech climate, and a pattern of disruptions and disinvitation attempts targeting speakers. That such deference for freedom of expression is only extended to these protesters doesn’t speak to a consistent application of Northwestern’s own policies.
As someone who’s invested in the university’s success, I fear that capitulating to divisive activists as it has just done has set a troubling precedent. Will the university be similarly deferential if right-wing provocateurs descend upon campus and call on the administration to renounce progressive policies such as its Office of Institutional Diversity and Inclusion?
I question how the administration can retain any semblance of legitimacy if it doesn’t now engage with all extremists, no matter how incompatible their demands are to Northwestern’s academic mission.
— Dima Spivak, Northwestern Class of 2010, Lake Zurich
Schill’s lack of moral courage
Northwestern University President Michael Schill’s op-ed shows that you can be a president of an elite university and lack the capacity for moral courage in action. Schill’s handling of antisemitism at Northwestern brings to mind the “paradox of tolerance” as described by philosopher Karl Popper. Per Wikipedia: “The paradox of tolerance states that if a society’s practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them.”
Schill states that “any protest needed to be in substantial compliance with our demonstration policy, which prohibits tents.” Clearly this isn’t the case because Schill didn’t enforce the rules in allowing tents to permeate Deering Meadow for days before acting.
Schill then states that “the tents are down, removing a source of antisemitic intimidation to many of our Jewish students.” Schill misses the mark. The tents aren’t “a source of antisemitic intimidation.” Certain people are. This is why the House Committee on Education and the Workforce is opening an antisemitism investigation into NU. It is telling that when Schill announced his agreement, seven members of his President’s Advisory Committee on Preventing Antisemitism and Hate stepped down, and it dissolved the next day.
As in all things, one must follow the money. According to the Department of Education, Northwestern University received nearly $582 million in gifts and contracts from the Qatar Foundation. The Qatar Foundation is a nonprofit founded in 1995 by Qatar’s ruling family. Qatar is one of the lead financiers of Hamas. Is this a moral quandary for Northwestern?
After not enforcing Northwestern’s rules, Schill then decided to capitulate to the demands of the protesters to improve life at Northwestern for Muslim students and students from the Middle East and North Africa, provide greater information to students about NU’s investments (i.e., open the door to boycott, divestment and sanctions), create a house for Muslim and Middle Eastern students, and include Gaza in the university’s Scholars at Risk program.
No Jewish organizations were consulted in his agreement, and the Jewish students who have been suffering harassment and antisemitism were left out in the cold.
Schill’s lack of moral courage in action is unacceptable. He is unfit to lead Northwestern.
— Jonathan Wolfe, Northwestern Class of 2003, Glencoe
Give evidence of antisemitism
Northwestern University is private property. President Michael Schill is the “custodian” of that property, and it is his decision as to whether to allow the protestors to stay on the property or to call the police. It is not anyone else’s decision to insist that someone call the police and arrest peaceful people on someone else’s property.
This statement by Schill in his op-ed, however, is appalling: “The tents are down, removing a source of antisemitic intimidation to many of our Jewish students.” If he has documented evidence of widespread “antisemitic intimidation” by the protestors, then please, bring it forward.
Otherwise, he joins the chorus of those disingenuous forces that smear those who call for a cease-fire by claiming that they are engaging in “antisemitic intimidation.” If someone feels intimidated by something that is not a threat and uses that to accuse someone else of intimidation, especially racial/ethnic/religious discrimination, that opens the door to anyone who feels intimidated to slander someone they disagree with. We have many examples in the United States of people being punished, beaten and even killed because someone wrongly asserted that they were actually being physically threatened.
Bring forward evidence and stop asserting that the peaceful protest, in fact, was “antisemitic” — especially given the large number of Jews, including in Israel, who are calling for a cease-fire. This slander of the whole protest is wrong.
— Alan Spector, Northwestern Class of 1980, Munster, Indiana
Handling of difficult situation
I want to thank my alma mater for handling this difficult situation with honor and grace, peacefully and without force, unlike many other institutions. Protesting against this war is not antisemitic but against a war that is an eye for a tooth. Hamas doesn’t care about the people of Gaza. It knew what the response would be from Israel, but the killing of innocent children and others is also intolerable and needs to stop.
How many future Hamas fighters are being made by the indiscriminate killing of at least 35,000 civilians?
— John Baumrucker, Highlands, North Carolina
Kudos to Schill, Northwestern
As a Northwestern University alumnus (Kellogg MBA, 1984), I was delighted to read Michael Schill’s op-ed. He articulates the rationale behind the university’s response to the student tent encampment with clarity and brevity. The university’s principled approach was compassionate and respectful toward all involved; established clear boundaries for adherence, particularly with limits the university will enforce; offered concessions benefiting previously underserved student groups; and ensured equitable solutions for the entire student body.
I also agree with Schill that the resolutions are “fragile.” However, an important step has been taken in creating a framework for addressing future issues. The key lies in proactive listening and continuing the principled approach detailed above. This method can be a recipe for improving the human condition rather than devolving into constant, solvable disputes.
Kudos to Schill, the leadership of Northwestern University and the students involved for a job well done!
Echoing Schill’s sentiments, we inhabit a world where parties often find themselves stuck “between a rock and a hard place.” May we all have the belief that we can rise to higher levels of human behavior, avoiding a perpetual descent into being stuck in the muck.
— Al Swarts, Ojai, California
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
