Last week, somebody defaced an Israeli flag hanging in Rouss-Robertson Hall with a question — “Where is Palestine.” In less than 24 hours, three members of the University's leadership denounced this act of vandalism as antisemitism. In doing so, they transformed a contemporary political question into a statement of enduring ethnic hatred. As a symbol of a nation state, the Israeli flag is a political rather than religious or ethnic symbol. Further, the text written on the flag, “Where is Palestine,” signals that this debate is happening in the political realm. In short, by labeling this question written on an Israeli flag as antisemitic, the University is suppressing discussions of Palestinian sovereignty. Vandalism is not a protected form of political protest, but the University’s response erroneously classifies a political act as a statement of ethnic enmity.
As educators committed to the ideals of pluralism and inquiry, we believe that the conclusions of Nicole Jenkins, dean of the McIntire School of Commerce, Ian Baucom, executive vice president and provost, and President Jim Ryan are wrong. As Jews, we reject the idea repeatedly expressed in Ryan’s Sept. 6 email to the University community — that political criticism of the state of Israel is synonymous with Jew-hating. Most importantly, we believe that a close reading of the administration’s response to this vandalism affords an opportunity to reflect on the intellectual and moral dangers of hastily labeling this act as bigotry.
Upon learning of the vandalism, Jenkins spoke with Baucom. Together they wrote “on its face, this appears to be an act of antisemitism and will likely be experienced by many in our community as such.”
This sentence reveals several leaps of logic. Its fundamental judgment, that the vandalism “appears to be an act of antisemitism” is problematic. The word “appears” hints at the possibility that further deliberation and discussion may be required before reaching the conclusion that the vandalism was antisemitic. While “appears” seems like a hedge against drawing hasty conclusions, “on its face” suggests a quickness, almost a reflexive judgment. This conveys that vandalism of the Israeli flag simply is antisemitism. A message that is expressly political, written on a national flag and without invoking Jews or Judaism is nonetheless quickly assessed to be fundamentally bigoted against Jews.
The second part of the sentence — the vandalism “will likely be experienced by many in our community as [antisemitism]” — seems to lose the courage of its convictions. Nevertheless, this is perhaps the most dangerous part of the email. Again, Jenkins asserts that a political question, “Where is Palestine,” written on an Israeli flag, will likely be “experienced” as antisemitism. In privileging the imagined feelings of “our community” over an analysis of what antisemitism has meant historically or what it means today, Jenkins seems to foreclose the possibility of discussions surrounding Palestinian sovereignty.
Ryan reproduces Jenkins’ email in full. In his own prefatory message, Ryan characterizes the vandalism as an “act of antisemitism.” But where Jenkins’ email hedged, Ryan’s email renders things starkly — asking “Where is Palestine” on an Israeli flag is, according to Ryan, Jew-hatred. Both Jenkins’ and Ryan’s messages suggest that the administration has closed ranks. Jenkins indicated that she “[spoke] with the Provost and we agree.” What do they agree upon, exactly? That it is antisemitic to vandalize a national flag with a political question? That it is antisemitic to imagine that one day a Palestinian flag might hang in the showcase of flags?
Many millions of people across the world have asked similar questions about what constitutes antisemitism. Indeed, they are asked in courses taught on Grounds. And there are many eminent scholars of Israel, Palestine and nationalism at the University of Virginia. These faculty members may have supplied an alternative definition of antisemitism, one that does not collapse the state of Israel with all contemporary Jews and Jewry. But, at least in the chronology offered by administrators’ emails, these scholars were not consulted. Our community would benefit from collective conversation which leverages these educational resources, as opposed to quickly issuing statements that have a chilling effect on speech at the University.
Jews are a diverse people with diverse political viewpoints living around the world. The Israeli government does not represent “the Jews.” Likewise, “the Jews” are not responsible for the actions of the Israeli government. It follows that the message written on the flag — “Where is Palestine” — is not in itself antisemitic. The text refers to politics, sovereignty and nation-states.
We can and should debate what constitutes antisemitism, an ethnic enmity that we condemn and that is on the rise nationally and globally. But the University’s response uses the term like a cudgel, describing a political act as hate speech. Such judgments conflate Jewishness with support for the policies of a modern nation-state. They imply that Jews who also protest Israel’s policies are not members of the Jewish community as the University understands it. Ryan and Jenkins are correct to observe that vandalism is not protected speech. Defacing a flag is illegal. But asking, “Where is Palestine” is not antisemitism — and it is certainly not antisemitism “on its face.”
Why bother to write this op-ed? We do not support the destruction of University property. We write because the stakes of the University’s response to this act of vandalism are high and impact everyone. If the perpetrator is caught, we are concerned that the University has laid the groundwork for them to be charged with a hate crime rather than a much less serious misdemeanor vandalism charge. Broadly, though, we are profoundly troubled by the speed, ease and apparent determination of the University administration to label certain kinds of political questions as antisemitic — and therefore to banish them from Grounds and our imaginations.
Laura Goldblatt is an assistant professor in the Department of English, Melissa Levy is an associate professor in the School of Education and Human Development and Sarah Milov is an associate professor in the Department of History. They can be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com.
The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of The Cavalier Daily. Columns represent the views of the authors alone.
Read More
ONIBUDO: Give us back our Hill
By Nathan Onibudo | YesterdayIt’s a shame that our administration seems willing to sacrifice authenticity for ease.
EDITORIAL: City Council — learn from past mistakes on ranked choice voting
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoGiven the success of ranked choice voting elsewhere in America and abroad, ranked choice voting will likely animate Charlottesville voters and improve our elections.
SULLIVAN: QR codes have crashed the party
By Scarlett Sullivan | 4 days agoUndeniably, having such barriers to entry for the University’s nightlife explicitly squashes fun.
