December 11, 2024

Dear Chancellor Syverud,

We, the executive committee of Syracuse University’s chapter of the AAUP, write to share some of our thoughts and concerns  about the future of academic freedom and freedom of expression here at SU, particularly as relates to the impending political shift to the right across all branches of the Federal government.  We suspect that universities—even in “blue” states—will begin to face increasing pressure to restrict academic freedom and freedom of speech, especially in light of the recent passage of HR 9495, which gives the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury unilateral power to strip away tax exempt status from any institution it deems a “terrorist-supporting” entity. The ACLU is already actively petitioning Senators to oppose this bill. But if it cannot be stopped in the Senate, this and other legislative initiatives may have a severe impact on academic freedom and freedom of speech on university campuses, as it will force tax-exempt organizations to “curtail their activities as a precaution in order to avoid stigmatizing and financially devastating punishments” (ACLU). 

In addition, we are concerned about the likely passage of S.4127, otherwise known as the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2024. This bill, which has already passed in the House, would codify into law the tenets of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA’s) definition of antisemitism and require the Department of Education, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to defer to the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism in response to any formal charges that might be filed against an academic institution receiving federal funding. While the IHRA’s definition acknowledges that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic,” its definition has nonetheless been levied against justifiable criticisms of Israel, and could become a tool to silence criticism of Israel’s ongoing violence against the Palestinian people and now-explicit plans to annex the West Bank. Given the recent history of accusations about antisemitism on SU’s campus, there is reason to fear that under these new laws, parents, alumni, donors, and government officials will be emboldened to weaponize spurious charges of antisemitism, harassment, or even terrorist activity as a means of silencing dissent and free expression on college campuses, including ours. 

Faculty in our department of Middle Eastern Studies are already reporting that their attempts to engage students in curricula dealing with the histories and politics of the region have become increasingly fraught. Their concerns are symptomatic of a larger national pattern; courses, conferences, and speaking events on the conflict in Gaza and the rights of Palestinians have been canceled or indefinitely postponed, including here at SU. Faculty members around the country have been dismissed, coerced into resigning, or have faced overt censorship and sanctioning for expressing controversial viewpoints. Likewise, students have faced suppression and penalty for expressing their views in various ways, ranging from participation in the encampment protests to utterances of controversial rhetoric, such as the word “intifada” or the phrase “From the river to the sea.” 

We understand that the administration has already faced pressure from both internal and external sources to suppress student protests around this issue. Now more than ever, it is vital that we work together to ensure that our university upholds high standards of academic freedom for all faculty, especially now that over 50% of us are on non-tenure track lines. We also need to reinforce the importance of vibrant debate and engagement around high-stakes controversial issues such as the situation in the Middle East and the U.S.’s role in prolonging and supporting the violence taking place. 

The AAUP remains committed to serving as a resource to the administration and to faculty across ranks as these pressures escalate. Last spring, our campus’ chapter made clear its support for students’ rights to free expression in an editorial published in the Daily Orange. In that statement, we cited the ACLU’s Open Letter to College Universities and Presidents on Student Protests, calling on universities “not [to] single out particular viewpoints — however offensive they may be to some members of the community — for censorship, discipline, or disproportionate punishment.” We continue to assert that offensive language is not the same as “harassment” and that such charges should not be uncritically wielded against protesters, even if their rhetoric might be painful or distressing for some members of our campus community. In its statement on “Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes”  the AAUP cautions that “An institution of higher learning fails to fulfill its mission if it asserts the power to proscribe ideas” and “sets a perilous course if it seeks to…choose which groups are to be protected by curbing the speech of others.” 

In March, 2022, AAUP National released a statement entitled Legislative Attacks to Academic Freedom: Redefinitions of Anti-Semitism and Racism. This statement may become especially relevant in defending against false charges of antisemitism as a means of silencing pro-Palestinian speech or critiques of the state of Israel. The AAUP cites 56 scholars of antisemitism who have critiqued the IHRA  statement, asserting that it “privileges the political interests of the state of Israel and suppresses discussion and activism on behalf of Palestinian rights. It has provided a pretext to bring coercive legal actions against supporters of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions [BDS] movement, denying proponents of this peaceful form of economic and cultural protest their freedom of expression.” Furthermore, as the AAUP points out, similar legislative initiatives at the state level have already resulted in “a chilling effect for faculty members and students who fear penalties from statutory enforcement and adverse actions by college and university administrators” (AAUP, “Legislative Attacks”).

In an effort to defend against such attacks, the AAUP has embraced a resource known as the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) (see “Legislative Attacks”), composed jointly by the aforementioned group of scholars in an attempt to clarify and supplement the IHRA’s self-described “working definition” of antisemitism, as well as close loopholes and ambiguities which could be exploited for the purpose of silencing political expression, scholarship, and debate. The authors of the JDA statement suggest that “Institutions that have already adopted the IHRA Definition can use our text as a tool for interpreting it.” The JDA statement separates out categories of speech pertaining to Israel and Palestine that “on the face of it, are… [and] are not antisemitic” (see sections B and C). Section C is especially important from a social justice standpoint, as it affirms “the Palestinian demand for justice and the full grant of their political, national, civil and human rights, as encapsulated in international law.” It also stipulates that it is not antisemitic to make evidence-based critiques of the state of Israel or to adopt support for BDS, and that “It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants ‘between the river and the sea,’ whether in two states, a binational state, unitary democratic state, federal state, or in whatever form.”

SU must be prepared–in collaboration with faculty and student constituencies–to confront any attempts to restrict academic freedom and freedom of speech and to defend members of our community who may be falsely accused of antisemitism or “terrorist” affiliation. We urge the administration to preemptively safeguard against such attacks by formally adopting support for the JDA platform, which was intended to be used by governments and institutions to demonstrate a steadfast commitment to freedom of expression while simultaneously denouncing antisemitism in unequivocal terms. We also feel strongly that the university has a responsibility to lobby against the aforementioned legislation and other such bills. 

We realize that the political theater and Title VI attacks in which the federal government has been engaged in an attempt to eliminate, control and disparage university presidents, and the harassment of administrators as well as faculty and students by numerous outside organizations and individuals, make it difficult to take these stands, but the autonomy of the university is essential to the educational mission.  University leaders must band together against these assaults on education. The AAUP looks forward to future conversations with the administration on how best to preserve a culture of intellectual freedom on this campus and protect the rights of all members of our community with regards to teaching, research, and freedom of expression.

Sincerely, 

AAUP Executive Committee

Crystal Bartolovich, President

Tony Scott, Vice President

Diane S. Grimes, Treasurer

Denise Heckman, Secretary

Eileen E. Schell, Member at Large

Ivy Kleinbart, Non-Tenure Track Representative

Matt Huber, Past President

Rusty Bartels, AAUP member and co-author