There are people focused on, maybe even obsessed with, the IHRA definition of antisemitism, and the sad thing is that their advocacy for AND against the definition often takes all of our eyes off the big issue on campus:
a. Some people think that criticism of Israel frequently crosses the line into antisemitism
b. Other people think that their criticism of Israel is unfairly attacked as antisemitic, interfering with their academic freedom
c. Group ‘a’ & Group ‘b’ spend a lot of time arguing over each other instead of working towards an understanding of how one may be justifiably sensitive of certain criticism of Israel, and how criticism of Israel may be a well-supported conclusion of a research endeavor.
I wish I could claim I could solve this problem as UTFA President, but I cannot, and I will not exert much energy trying. As President, I will prioritize issues that our members care about like childcare and housing costs!
During the 2022, some of my colleagues told stories that I advocated for the IHRA definition of antisemitism on campus, or that I am part of a group of council members who advocate for IHRA. Both claims are untrue, and at least one letter that circulated around campus making that claim by an UTFA Executive was retracted.
To set the record straight: in 2019, I gave a speech at the Hart House opposing the unqualified adoption of the IHRA on campus. In March 2021, when the incumbent UTFA Executive proposed a motion on the IHRA definition, I sent this letter to council asking council to table the motion and wait for the Anti-Semitism Working Group to conclude its task. In response to a motion by one of my campaign advisors, UTFA Council did, indeed, table the motion.
When the Anti-Semitism Working Group (ASWG) issued its report near the end of 2021, it documented many instances of antisemitism on campus, but recommended against adopting any specific definition. The ASWG’s decision was justified with an argument that if the university officially adopted the resolution, the university might violate the Chicago Principles which the current provincial government requires. President Gertler accepted that recommendation. UTFA commended the work of the committee.
Given the arguments of the ASWG, the acceptance of its recommendations by both UTFA and Simcoe Hall, and the provincial government's pledge to ensure that Ontario universities refrain from shielding their students from ideas they find disagreeable, one cannot reasonably expect the IHRA definition of antisemitism to be implemented in the foreseeable future on campus.
Therefore, I have not spoken about the IHRA definition during my campaign because it is not a pressing issue. UTFA needs to focus on what matters to faculty – housing, childcare, benefits for retirees, health and safety, workload, better funding for graduate students and fighting for salaries to keep pace with inflation.
That does not mean that there is not a problem of antisemitism on campus, including situations where criticism of Israel is viewed as crossing a line into antisemitism, or Jews on campus are blamed for actions taken by Israel. On the contrary, the ASWG documented that there exists antisemitism on campus and provided a lengthy list of examples of incidents of antisemitism endured by members of our campus community.
The ASWG also noted that criticism of Israel can be seen as antisemitic. So, even though the ASWG rejected any definition on free speech grounds, it did not reject the idea that some criticism of Israel may be antisemitic. Indeed, with several definitions of antisemitism proposed by various advocacy groups, including Nexus, the Jerusalem Declaration (JDA) and IJV, I often counsel my students that one must be cognizant of a range of opinions of what is antisemitic when talking about Israel-Palestine, rather than mindful of one specific definition no matter the jurisdiction. With multiple definitions drawing different lines, all should be cognizant that there are words and actions that unequivocally are antisemitic, and there are also certain criticisms of Israel and Israeli policies that [almost] all would agree are acceptable. Then there is a very large grey area where certain words and actions are considered antisemitic by some definitions but acceptable by others. Anything within that grey area may be contested, which means that some may criticize the speech or action as antisemitic, but others may defend that same speech or action as inoffensive.
As President, I will fight to protect every members' academic freedom and right to express their political beliefs regardless of whether or not I agree with their views. I respect the views of those with whom I disagree, and expect that they will respect my views and the views of others who also enjoy a right to express their political beliefs.
We all must recognize that academic freedom has limits, and in 2023-2024, there are now quite a few members of the university community who have sadly tested those limits by advocating or celebrating violence, by vandalizing local businesses, and by spreading conspiracy theories that amplify tropes of nefarious Jewish power. Some faculty have even inserted contentious politics into classroom lectures that have nothing to do with the war in Gaza. Where such actions cause the university to determine that students would presume bias in the classroom, then we will work with our members to ensure due process and that they have opportunities to correct their behavior and understand the limits of academic freedom.
There are several experts in the local Toronto community who can provide training for people interested in learning more about these definitions and perceived lines between acceptable criticism of Israel and antisemitism. ARCDO and multiple student groups have brought in several such experts. UTFA could partner with ARCDO, or other local groups if members were interested in arranging such a discussion, but given the availability of such resources already on – or near – campus, this will not be a priority for UTFA if I am elected president.
UTFA, under my leadership, will focus on issues that really matter to our members, and I will make every effort to focus on pragmatic, realistic goals to achieve as an association. Hopefully, some world leaders will try to solve the Israel-Palestine conflict.
コメント