Hamas attacks on Israel bring cancel culture hypocrisy to college campuses

Shortly after the horrific Hamas attacks that killed some 1,300 Israelis, most of them civilians, some 30 progressive groups at Harvard University released a widely deplored statement that not only urged solidarity with Palestinians but pinned the entire blame for the massacre on Israel itself. Now, some business leaders are demanding that Harvard release the names of the student activists involved in these groups in order to block their post-graduation hiring. Meanwhile, the president of the New York University Student Bar Association has already lost a job offer from a large international law firm over a statement in which she said that Israel “bears full responsibility” for the loss of life.

Is this a form of “cancel culture,” but this time directed at supporters rather than opponents of left-wing social justice causes? Are defenders of "politically incorrect" speech, regardless of how provocative it may be, being hypocritical when the shoe is on the other foot? Are social justice advocates who once claimed that losing your job for offensive speech was simply a matter of “consequences” and “accountability” taking a different view when the offensive speech is in their own camp?

As with many political disputes, there’s plenty of hypocrisy and double standards to go around. But the claim that prominent free speech defenders and “cancel culture” critics are nowhere to be seen when progressive extremists are the ones being canceled is simply wrong. For instance, writer Thomas Chatterton Williams, one of the strongest critics of intellectual intolerance during the racial justice protests in the summer of 2020, has a new article in the Atlantic vocally defending freedom of even repugnant speech — such as pro-Hamas rallies — in the wake of the terror attacks in Israel. One can find many other examples.

At the same time, very few critics of “cancel culture” have ever argued that no one should ever suffer stigma and ostracism — including loss of professional opportunities — for offensive speech. While the government should never censor speech outside of imminent threats of violence, people and organizations can refuse to be associated with hateful or repugnant views. But social norms in a free society should also encourage tolerance for a broad range of opinions and keep such shunning to a minimum. There’s a big difference between firing someone for criticizing Black Lives Matter and firing someone for praising the Ku Klux Klan.

This distinction between controversial views on the one hand, and extreme and hateful views on the other, should be one that we keep in mind in exchanges about Israel and Palestine. No one should be silenced or punished for advocating for Palestinian rights. But one can find many examples of people excusing or even celebrating the Hamas attacks; a Cornell University professor called them “exhilarating,” though he has since apologized. And there are even more disturbing examples. A Stanford professor shamed Jewish students as “colonizers.” An assistant professor and undergraduate faculty adviser at the University of California-Davis, Jemma DeCristo, posted thinly veiled threats of deadly violence against “Zionist journalists” and their families.

As for the Harvard students, some of whom are already saying that they signed the anti-Israel statement without knowing what was in it, they can get a pass for being young and reckless. But this should be a teachable moment about many important things — from the importance of forgiveness to the danger of knee-jerk solidarity with extremist causes.

Opinions expressed by Cathy Young, a writer for The Bulwark, are her own.

By Cathy Young

Cathy Young is a writer for The Bulwark.