By Claudia Villalona
A petition calling for the removal of a Columbia University professor has gathered over 56,000 signatures in the wake of an article by the professor, Joseph Massad, that described the Hamas attacks on Israel as a “resistance offensive.”
The petition, first posted on change.org by Columbia General Studies student Maya Platek, calls the article, titled “Just Another Battle or the Palestinian War of Liberation?” an unacceptable defense of terrorism.
Posted on the online site The Electronic Intifada, the article described the Hamas attacks that began October 7th as an unprecedented “resistance offensive” and a “stunning victory” against the Israeli military.
“Massad’s decision to praise the abhorrent attack encourages violence and misinformation in and outside of campus, particularly putting many Jewish and Israeli students on campus at risk,” wrote Platek in her appeal for support of the petition.
The petition was reported by the Columbia Spectator, a campus newspaper, but it gained substantial traction beyond Columbia after David Friedman, Columbia alumnus and former U.S. ambassador to Israel, shared it on X, formerly Twitter, on October 15th. Other media outlets, including Fox News and the New York Post, have published articles accusing the professor of supporting terrorism. Those articles helped fuel an explosive growth in attention – and petition signatures.
According to Platek, change.org suspended the petition on October 17th, placing it under review by moderators that enforce the platform’s community guidelines. After publishing a second petition that got a little over 900 signatures, the website reinstated Platek’s original petition, which had over 56,700 signatures on Monday.
While Columbia’s administration has not commented on the petition, over 2,000 Columbia faculty members, students and alumni have signed an open letter expressing “unwavering solidarity” with Professor Massad and his right to academic freedom of expression. The letter says that the administration’s silence on the matter has fueled further attacks that threaten academic freedom and personal safety.
“The right to free speech protects expression that may be considered offensive, hateful, or violent,” said Zachary Greenberg, Senior Program Officer for Campus Rights Advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), in an interview with West Side Rag. “Universities cannot punish faculty for expressing political views in a personal capacity,” Greenberg said.
Hamas’ surprise attacks and Israel’s subsequent retaliatory bombardment of Gaza have led to heightened tensions on college campuses. Recent developments at Columbia University reveal a deepening ideological split, raising concerns over freedom of speech on campus and the university’s responsibility to ensure the safety of students and faculty.
Some students within the Columbia community have reported a hostile climate of doxxing, harassment, and censorship on campus, and dueling protests on October 12th led the administration to take the rare step of closing its campus to outsiders during the protests.
Since the competing protests, Columbia has kept the Morningside Heights campus gates closed and limited access out of an “abundance of caution.” Several student organizations have held separate vigils and town hall meetings, and student groups supporting Palestinians have called for a nationwide walkout on campuses on Wednesday, October 25th.
Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace published a joint op-ed in the Columbia Spectator on October 17, expressing fear for their safety and citing a rise in Islamophobia and incidents of “physical harassment, doxxing, and verbal assaults.”
According to the student organizations, students have been “intimidated into silence because the University has failed to ensure our protection, even from our fellow classmates and faculty.”
Canary Mission, a website that publicly identifies individuals and organizations that have expressed what it considers anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiments, has published the photos and personal information of several Columbia students and faculty in an effort to intimidate or silence them, according to the joint op-ed.
“Universities have an obligation to both protect students’ safety and uphold the right to free speech,” said Greenberg of FIRE. “The university must make clear the distinction between protected free speech and unlawful violence.”
On October 9th, Columbia’s recently inaugurated president, Minouche Shafik, released the first in a series of statements regarding the conflict, emphasizing the vital role universities play in “fostering critical thinking and scholarship,” but stating that “hate speech, discrimination, or violation of our core values will not be tolerated.”
In a follow-up statement emailed to students and members of the community on October 18th, President Shafik expressed disappointment at the “abhorrent rhetoric coming from members of our community, including members of our faculty and staff.” The statement did not identify any specific comments.
Beyond campus, concerns have mounted over companies and organizations rescinding job offers and punishing current or former students for their political affiliations. The New York Times reported that the law firm Davis Polk is reconsidering its decision to rescind job offers made to two Columbia Law School students because of their leadership roles in organizations that signed on to a joint statement from Palestine Solidarity Groups at Columbia University.
“While private employers do not have the same obligations to the First Amendment as universities, it is nevertheless troubling that private employers are choosing to punish students for their protected political speech,” said Kristen Shahverdian, senior manager of free expression at PEN America – a nonprofit organization that advocates for the protection of free speech on campus.
To receive WSR’s free email newsletter, click here.
I’m very familiar with Joseph Massad. He has a long history of viciously anti-Israel and (arguably) antisemitic statements that go well beyond the pale of rational discourse about the Middle East conflict.
If Massad were to make these statements about any other ethnic group or nationality there would be unanimity that he should be fired.
Just today the WSJ had an article about how many wealthy alumni – Jewish and non-Jewish – are ending their donations to universities over the perceived anti-Israel bias of these universities.
Massad arguably has a right to state his opinions (however offensive they are) without getting terminated. However, wealthy alumni also have a right to decide what to do with their money.
Hopefully, these wealthy alumni will consider Massad’s tenure before they write a check to Columbia.
Lose him. The students deserve better.
Wow, how did he get it so wrong – “The right to free speech protects expression that may be considered offensive, hateful, or violent”. Free speech should not and does not protect hateful and violent speech. This is scary.
If, by “free speech”, you mean the First Amendment, “hateful and violent speech” is indeed protected. The only speech that is not protected is that which presents a clear and present danger. The standard example of such speech would be yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater.
The First Amendment limits the governments ability to limit speech. It is not applicable when considering employment.
He is correct. The First Amendment generally protects hate speech.
First Amendment is applicable to the government persecution, not employers. One cannot be jailed for expressing a hideous view, but one can certainly lose his job.
Not if it incites violence.
Strong emphasis on “incite.” Speech can he hateful or offensive, but it is not protected by the first amendment if it makes an imminent call to violence. Also, when we’re talking from whom speech is protected, constitutionally, we’re talking about the government, not a private entity or person.
Sigh. Columbia students I guess aren’t any brighter than the rest.
I guess you didn’t read it. Columbia students voted to oust him.
Do you really want your children indoctrinated by a man who is “exhilarated” when women are raped, children are burned alive, and babies are beheaded?
Free speech is one thing. Hate speech, which further divides people and casts immoral actions as acceptable, is quite another.
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
“Peaceably to assemble.” “Prohibiting the free exercise thereof” referring to religion.
Free speech does not grant the right to incite violence. Or the right to cause harm based on religion.
Encroaching on another’s right to live in peace is not free speech.
How overwhelmingly sad that the privileged denizens of a respected institution of higher learning cannot tolerate the expression of a dissenting viewpoint.
Couldn’t they just say “we disagree with you”, rather than seeking to punish the speaker and take away his livelihood?
“Free speech, unless you disagree with me”? For shame!
Actually, constitutional protection of free speech does not extend to employment. There is a difference between disagreeing on economic or social issues. I am pro abortion, but I would not want to restrict those who are against it. I am pro environment, but I would not censor those who want to use coal.
Celebrating terrorism is not something reasonable people can disagree on.
Protected political speech?? Quite the euphemism. This is how open support for terrorists who murdered1400 unarmed civilians and took another 200 people hostage is described? What do politics have to do with coldblooded murder? Why should a private business feel obligated to have an employee who publicly supports terrorism ?
I wish these 2000 Columbia letter signers and PEN would chime in on Penn Law’s Amy Wax!
As always, thank you to the WSR for smart, punchy and accurate reporting. The NY Times should take note.
Here’s what gets lost in the cultural fog – while a professor or student certainly has the right to free speech, there can also be consequences to the exercise of that right. If a professor espouses and disseminates propaganda that is at odds with the values of an institution, the consequences of the exercise of free speech may well be unemployment. If a professor at Oral Roberts University espouses and disseminates information and views on the illegitimacy of Christian evangelism, that professor might well expect to be fired. Likewise if a professor at an institution with a more liberal set of values (including an HBCU) publishes in favor of racism or slavery, or opines about the “inferiority” of a race of people, that professor would (and should) expect to be fired.
Some might call this cancel culture. I call it the exercise of free speech and the attendant consequences of same.
Regarding students who celebrate the actions of the Hamas terrorists and their savagery, yes, exercise your first amendment rights by all means. But don’t complain when your words have consequences. In this case, at Columbia University, promoting lies, anti-Semitic propaganda and disinformation should, in my opinion, get you an expulsion. Don’t like it? There are surely some colleges who share your values that would be glad to have you. I’ll even help you find some!
I do not get it. I completely don’t get it. What is it, “radical chic”, the latest fad cause?
Protected by free speech right or not, sympathizing with Palestinians or not, how can one consider specifically targeting and killing children and elderly specifically a legitimate mean?
I’m not Jewish or Arab, I don’t have an alliance or loyalty to either group. I also understand that free speech and hate speech have huge overlap. It is not about legal interpretation intricacies in this case. It is about your character and morality. Finding babies and elderly a legitimate target to get what you want is not acceptable in a civil society. Not even half-way civil.
It might be legal, but it doesn’t mean it is ethical and we have to accept it from that perspective. I would never hire or be friends with someone who thinks it is a legitimate fight.
It would be a crying shame if Massad were cancelled by Columbia. I can see why people disagree with him, and I think he’s gone too far myself. But the answer to disagreement is rational debate, not cancellation; not hysterical ad-hominem attacks; not moral indignation without reasoned argument. People naturally won’t like much of what he has apparently said. But Columbia needs to hear all voices and what he is saying is close to what the majority of the Global South is saying and people at Columbia need to know and understand and debate those perspectives. Hamas is utterly reprehensible in its tactics, but it gains points whenever there is this kind of extreme reaction to criticisms of Israel.
The real question is whether, in light of his comments, he can be fair and provide an open learning environment for all students irrespective of race, religion, or ethnic background. I would agree with you if the question were merely one of him saying something stupid. But could a Jewish or Israeli student feel like they are being fairly treated in one of his classes where he is siding with an organization who’s founding documents make clear it is wildly antisemitic. For example, how would a black student feel if a professor started advocating for more lynchings is the South as a way of reversing past Northern State aggression. I would think that is such a circumstance, the overriding concern for an educational environment that is free of overt racism would trump whatever First Amendment rights that professor had. In this instance Massad’s articles come very close to crossing that line, if not stepping well across it.
Every termination of an employee isn’t “cancelation”.
If Columbia determines that having an employee who vocally celebrates the mass murder of Jews, the beheading of children, and the kidnapping of young and old, disabled and healthy violates their terms of employment, they may fire him.
Why aren’t you allowed to disagree with someone without cancelling them. I disagree with people every day, I don’t ask to have them fired.
Hahaha. If your grandparents perished in the Holocaust and a server at Starbuck’s was loudly sharing his opinion that all the Jews should have been exterminated while wearing a shirt with a large swastika on it, I’m pretty certain you’d have the young Nazi fired. As I said in my post above, he’s allowed to express his opinion so long as he understands there may be consequences to blatantly sharing those opinions at the workplace.
“…I’m pretty certain you’d have the young Nazi fired…”
Absolutely not. I would almost certainly stop giving that store my business, and would probably let the store know why I was taking my business elsewhere, but it’s not for me to get someone fired for expressing a viewpoint. That’s the whole point.
Now if the store decided to fire the employee because the store could document from former customers (like me) that he was costing it business — *not* because the store disagreed with a view that he held — that would be a valid (documented) business decision, not a punishment for the employee’s saying something disagreeable.
But you can’t jump from the speech to assume the business effect. Maybe customers wouldn’t care, and so would continue to patronize the store. That’s where the First Amendment protects the speaker.
No, it doesn’t. The First Amendment prohibits the government from making any laws that abridge free speech. A retail store is not the government. If they choose to fire the employee because they find what he says or does offensive, they may do so.
There is no excuse for, justification of, or victory from the pogrom that occurred on October 7, 2023.
Let me also say that I believe any person may express their opinions freely in the United States, no matter how one-sided.
From the little I have heard it seems that the professor sympathizes with the militant Jihadist approach to conflict resolution in the Near East, and I hope for his own security he himself doesn’t decide to take a hiatus in Gaza.
There is case law where speech that can be reasonably proven to **incite** violence is not protected. So basically if there are riots on campus that stem from this.
Yes he could have spoken out against the violence and atrocities against the Israeli civilians – although I would guess he would give an answer related to violence and atrocities against Palestinians. Is his article hard to read? Yes. Is there untruth in it? I don’t think so – and certainly not i
Deserving of losing his job. Maybe the better answer is questions and dialogue instead of stifling viewpoints that are difficult to accept
Yes, no other opinions are allowed.
FREE THE HOSTAGES! BRING THEM HOME
Every American has the right to free speech, Every American does not have the right to be a Columbia Professor. Employers and especially educators have the right and responsibility to have a say in who they employ and the image those employees project.
Thank you! I’ve been trying to make that point in a long-winded way and you just put it succinctly. The price of free speech is more free speech which often comes with consequences.
I’m for free speech including the right to react peacefully to hateful speech. If Massad feels so strongly about what he said then he should be willing to risk losing his job. If he’s trying to be provocative then he can’t complain about the blowback. I don’t see any difference between him and the thugs who marched in Charlottesville chanting “Jews will not replace us”. I want to tell him that if he thinks killing infants in front of their parents is a “stunning victory” then his soul is truly rotten.
Condoning genocide carries no legal sanction, but it can (and should) absolutely carry social stigma and consequences. The first amendment is no bar to Columbia firing this man, which should have happened the day that article was published.
Also, the percentage of people who understand (or fail to understand) the first amendment seems to be about the same as with International Humanitarian Law.
The Universities have a very difficult road ahead of them, but it must be remembered that while free speech and discourse is an essential element of a college education, and students cannot be shielded from views they disagree with, that interest must be weighed against the Universities’ obligations to provide a learning environment free of discrimination and harassment on account of race or religion under Titles IV and VI of the Civil Rights Act. So while a boisterous debate over the Arab-Israeli conflict is to be encouraged, a line must be drawn where the debate becomes overtly threatening and hostile such that students reasonably can no longer feel safe on campus, or that they are made to suffer a hostile learning environment. Many of the current protests have, in my view, unwittingly crossed that line. It starts with students openly supporting an organization, Hamas, that is every bit as odious and antisemitic as the KKK or any Neo-Nazi groups. Add to that the fact students are then celebrating extreme acts of violence committed against innocent Israeli Citizens, would start to make any Jewish student feel unwelcome. Then there is tolerance for protests that have taken a decidedly angry tone, openly supporting violence here in the United States. A University of California at Davis professor even tweeted that “zionist journalists who spread propaganda & misinformation” crimes should be attacked, complete with knife tear and blood emojis. How is an Israeli or Jewish student supposed to feel safe in that professor’s class. We have seen scenes of Jewish students being locked in the library at Hamilton University while anti-Israel protesters pound on the doors. There is the picture of a Jewish student in tears talking to a campus official at Columbia saying “they want to kill us.” Its fair to say that that student’s educational environment was suffering. It is one thing to debate whether Israeli policies and actions contributed to an environment that makes Hamas possible, but openly celebrating attacks on innocent human beings, shouting down other students, attacking them, threatening violence against perceived Zionists is unacceptable if Universities are to remain open to people regardless of creed or color.