The treason of the intellectuals — again | thearticle

On 11 December the historian Niall Ferguson wrote an essay on “The Treason of the Intellectuals” for the online platform The Free Press, taking his title from the famous work by the French

intellectual Julien Benda, _La Trahison des Clercs_ (1927). Benda’s book was an all-out attack on how European intellectuals who should have upheld the values of the Enlightenment had

instead descended into extreme nationalism and racism. They had ushered in “the age of the intellectual organisation of political hatreds”. Almost a century later, writes Ferguson, American

academics have also betrayed their vocation: “For nearly ten years, rather like Benda, I have marvelled at the treason of my fellow intellectuals. I have also witnessed the willingness of

trustees, donors, and alumni to tolerate the politicisation of American universities by an illiberal coalition of ‘woke’ progressives, adherents of ‘critical race theory’, and apologists for

Islamist extremism.” Ferguson’s piece could not be more timely. It followed soon after an Open Letter on the Misuse of Holocaust Memory in _The New York Review of Books_, signed by a 

number of distinguished historians of the Holocaust and antisemitism (20 November), which attacked “political leaders and notable public figures invoking Holocaust memory to explain the

current crisis in Gaza and Israel” (see my piece in _TheArticle_ on 25 November). Two other rejoinders followed, both signed by leading historians, one in _The Jewish Chronicle _and the

second in _The New York Review of Books_ Undaunted, the signatories of the original letter replied to their critics. Unfortunately, their response had the same problems as their first

letter: lots of assertions but surprisingly little evidence. Who are these political leaders and “figures in the media” who refer to the attacks on 7 October as “a Holocaust” or to Hamas as

“Nazis”? It is inappropriate to compare 7 October with the Holocaust, but would they consider it more reasonable to compare 7 October with pogroms in the past, or with individual atrocities 

during the “Shoah by Bullets” by the Nazis and their allies? We don’t know because they don’t say. They continue: “If the current war is conceived of as a battle between ‘the children of

light and the children of darkness’, between the civilised and the barbarians, between the Jews and the Nazis, then every act of violence is _a priori_ justified as preventing a second

Holocaust.” Are they saying this isn’t “a battle between … the civilised and the barbarians”? Are Hamas not “barbarians”? Really? Is Israel, the home of the Weizmann Institute, The Hebrew

University and Yad Vashem, not “civilised”? Again, they don’t make the argument. Then they say “over 6000 children have been killed to date”. Have they? Again, no sources, no evidence. They

later write, “The writers’ [responding to their original letter] claim that ‘Hamas has had a state in Gaza for seventeen years, five years longer than the Nazis controlled Germany’ is

specious and tendentious.” But isn’t it also true? So how can it be “specious and tendentious”? This is just another assertion with no argument or evidence. In the final paragraph, they

assert that Israel has caused “massive death and destruction” since the brief ceasefire. Of course, they don’t mention who broke the ceasefire and they don’t define what they mean by

“massive death” since they don’t offer any figures or sources. However, what prompted Ferguson’s article was not this exchange, but the extraordinary cross-examination in Congress of the

presidents of U Penn, MIT and Harvard. The complacency of the presidents of three of America’s most prestigious universities was astonishing. Asked straightforward questions about whether

calls for genocide were acceptable at their universities they twisted and turned, unwilling to give a straight answer to a straight question. Claudine Gay, President of Harvard, was asked,

‘at Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment, yes or no?’ The university administrator replied: ‘It can be, depending on the

context.” Donors have been quick to withdraw huge sums (one withdrew $100 million), the President of U Penn has been forced to resign after her abysmal performance and Claudine Gay, the

President of Harvard, has faced calls for her resignation (though over 500 Harvard faculty members wrote a letter to the board of trustees supporting Ms. Gay). Gay’s ‘has done more damage to

the reputation of Harvard University than any individual in our nearly 500-year history,’ said Hedge Fund manager Bill Ackman, who has become a figurehead of Jewish resistance to the Ivy

League leaders. Writing on X/Twitter, Ackman said: “Because of her failure to condemn the most vile and barbaric terrorism…, for supporting rather than condemning 34 Harvard-branded student

organizations who hold Israel ‘entirely responsible’ for Hamas’ barbaric acts, for failing to enforce Harvard’s own rules on student conduct, and for her other failures of leadership,

President Gay catalyzed an explosion of antisemitism and hate on campus that is unprecedented in Harvard’s history.” In her response, Ms. Gay admitted: “I failed to convey what is my truth.”

Of course, this is exactly the nature of the problem. College presidents should not be speaking about “my truth”. There is just the truth, demonstrated by rational argument, backed up by

evidence. What was astonishing was the rush to defend these college administrators in newspapers like _The Wall Street Journal _and _The New York Times_ and magazines like _New York, _where

Jonathan Chait, a regular contributor for more than a decade, wrote a piece, “The College Presidents Were Right About Antisemitism”:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/12/college-presidents-antisemitism-campus-free-speech-congress-stefanik.html. Chait writes that the questions put to the college presidents were “largely

impossible queries”. Really? Actually, they were very straightforward and the presidents failed to grasp the significance of what Rep. Stefanek and her colleagues were asking. First, the

presidents failed to make the distinction between speech and conduct. That was obviously what they should have done, so why didn’t they? Second, their manner was so offensive: smirking

(especially President Magill from U Penn), failing to take the questions seriously and replying in an appropriate manner. Then Chait went on to say, “there’s no good answer” to Rep. Kiley’s

question: “If you were talking to a prospective student’s family, a Jewish student’s family right now, could you look them in the eye and tell them that their son or daughter_ _would be safe

and feel safe and welcome on your campus?” Is that an impossible query?  How about: No one can absolutely guarantee anyone’s safety but I could assure these parents that everyone at Harvard

is absolutely committed to student safety and we do everything in our power to ensure student safety at Harvard. Here are our statistics for Jewish students and what we have done about

antisemitism on campus? Chait also wrote, “Globalise the intifada” is “deliberately ambiguous” as a phrase. Jews have no doubt whatsoever about the threat implied in this slogan, so how can

it be “ambiguous”? The ambiguity lies in the failure of so many non-Jews in positions of authority to take these slogans seriously. It’s a failure of will, not the ambiguity of language. The

same applies to “from the river to the sea”. All Jews I know understand this to be a call to genocide against Israelis living between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea. Chait and

others who supported the luckless college presidents failed to address a number of key questions. If white students marched around these campuses calling for the genocide of Black, gay or

Trans students without actually attacking any of them, would that be considered acceptable at Harvard, Penn or MIT? Then there’s the question of double standards, which they rarely address.

In his book, _The Tyranny of Virtue_, the American literary critic Robert Boyers writes about all the things that professors are no longer allowed to say at Skidmore College where he has

taught since the 1960s. For example, they cannot say they have to run for a train because what about disabled students who can’t run?  Expressions like “stand up for”, “turn a blind eye to”

and “walk in someone’s shoes” are all considered examples of “ableist language” at Skidmore. A student protested to him, Boyers writes, against “the screening of a ‘disturbing’ 1960s Italian

comedy that may trigger, in a person with her background, traumatic memories.” Boyers was courteous and sympathetic, but then she tells him “that as a man you’ll never understand the

problem.” Game, set and match. Another student complains to Boyers about a set text by the white South African writer, Nadine Gordimer. It was “a bad idea” for a “privileged” white woman

like Gordimer (a lifelong critic of apartheid) to be dealing with [Black] people about whose lives “she was bound to be clueless”. Were there particular instances in the novel, Boyers asks

her, where Gordimer seemed to her “clueless” and had got things wrong? She couldn’t say. “I felt very uncomfortable about the direction we were heading in,” she says later in the

conversation. She didn’t like “the usual Western prejudices”. On countless British and American campuses there have been marches and calls to boycott visiting speakers whose arguments are

considered to be offensive to people who support trans rights or who oppose colonialism. Countless texts are considered “triggering” so shouldn’t be read or taught. Call for genocide and

journalists or lawyers become very concerned about free speech. Call to boycott visiting speakers or accuse a teacher of microaggressions or triggering, and free speech goes out of the

window. Some forms of speech are considered intolerable in British and American universities; others, apparently, are not. You can call for genocide against Jews but not debate the issue of

trans rights or the rights of Palestinians and yet these inconsistencies get left out of the argument over the First Amendment. A few days ago, I saw a video clip of a scene at MIT where a

young Black student stood up and kept standing during a complex Maths lecture. When the young professor finally noticed him and allowed him to speak, he just started on an anti-Israel rant

and others joined in. For Jewish students in the hall this would have been an extremely intimidating atmosphere. Who knew if and when violent speech would lead to violent acts (a key

distinction made by academic defenders of the three college presidents)? Why should such aggressive and crazy speech be free? It was disrupting a class. The young teacher had clearly lost

control or was intimidated and perhaps he was afraid to call security in case he was accused of racism. This isn’t free speech; this was intimidating and aggressive behaviour in a context in

which professors are often no longer in charge and it would seem are not confident that they would receive support from the college authorities if they asked such students to leave the

hall. At many American universities the problem with free speech is that there isn’t any  — except, it seems, when it comes to calls for Palestinians to kill Jews from the river to the sea.

A MESSAGE FROM THEARTICLE _We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need

your help to continue publishing throughout these hard economic times. So please, make a donation._