UPenn Liz Magill’s Resignation, Sparks Concerns on Free Speech
Liz Magill’s Resignation
The resignation of University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill made headlines this past weekend following her statements at the hearing on antisemitism. Her resignation follows her controversial responses to the question of whether the call for the genocide of Jews violates Penn’s code of conduct. Magill answered that the call for the genocide of Jews can only violate Penn’s code of conduct if the speech turns into conduct and is therefore classified as harassment. She also declared that the decision the university would take is “context-specific,” angering Representative Elise Stefanik and the Jewish community at large.
Breakdown of UPenn Free Speech Policy
While the media has construed Magill’s response as a negation of the severity of antisemitism, she answered the question with respect to the University of Pennsylvania’s free speech policy. Although the media interpreted Magill’s response as downplaying the severity of antisemitism, she was actually addressing the University of Pennsylvania’s free speech policy.
“The University of Pennsylvania’s Office of Student Affairs website states: “The University of Pennsylvania, as a community of scholars, affirms, supports, and cherishes the concepts of freedom of thought, inquiry, speech, and lawful assembly. The freedom to experiment, to present and examine alternative data and theories; the freedom to hear, express, and debate various views; and the freedom to voice criticism of existing practices and values are fundamental rights that must be upheld and practiced by the University in a free society.”
Open Expression – Office of Student Affairs, University of Pennsylvania
The University of Pennsylvania’s hate speech policy also states:
“Hate speech is very hard to define in a way that would allow institutions to address it. Even if we could define it, we could not prevent or punish hate speech because it is protected under the First Amendment… Universities can invest their efforts and resources in educating their members and in creating spaces and contexts for productive dialogue, but they cannot legitimately punish members — students, staff, and faculty — who choose not to participate in those, or who profess bigoted and other hateful views. This is especially true in open and public spaces, like Locust Walk. We can address classroom speech and behaviors that disrupt learning, but what our community members say in public spaces, including those spaces that are part of our campus, is only subject to discipline if the inflammatory speech intentionally and effectively provokes a crowd to immediately carry out violent and unlawful action.”
Free Speech FAQs | Supporting our community in times of crisis, University of Pennsylvania
Both policies not only informed former President Magill’s responses at the congressional hearings but also influenced the University of Pennsylvania’s decision not to cancel the Palestine Writes Literature Festival in September.
Protection of Free Speech?
This raises questions about the real-world application of a university’s free speech policy. To what extent are university code policies implemented in practice? Former President Liz Magill directly followed the University of Pennsylvania’s code of conduct, and she was still pressured to resign.
Not only does this raise questions about university policy, but it also involves national job security and the nature of the First Amendment concerning antisemitism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia. To what extent are citizens actually protected by the First Amendment? Many institutions and workplaces embrace the First Amendment; however, the recent turn of on-campus events has tested the volatility and uncertainty revolving around the implementation amendment.
Furthermore, the question prompted by Representative Elise Stefanik at the congressional hearings was based on misconstrued videos of pro-Palestinian protests. A viral video circulated on social media displaying protesters allegedly saying “We want Jewish suicide.” The original lyrics of the chant state, “We charge you (Israel) with genocide.” Again, this also prompts a valid concern over fake news influencing national dialogue.
Liz Magill’s resignation sheds light on discrepancies across the university and national dialogue, prompting a reevaluation of the foundational principles on which the United States prides itself. It will be interesting to track the ways in which other universities and institutions will approach this dilemma.
Complied by Arab America
Check out Arab America’s blog here!
