Because radicalized students and agitators have been able to target Jews with little or no pushback, it should come as no surprise that progressive activists have broadened their scope to harass and abuse others with differing ideologies or political affiliations. Opinion.
I was asked during a reception at a recent speaking engagement whether I was shocked at the rise of political violence in the US – where elected officials incite it with words or condone it by silence. I responded that violence masquerading as political expression is neither new nor rare and that the current trend was presaged by the rise in violent antisemitism against Jewish university students, businesses and institutions, and by the acceptance of genocidal rhetoric as virtuous over the last couple of decades – and especially since October 7th.
Those who chant “free Palestine” are not seeking independence for a nation that does not exist, but the destruction of one that does. Indeed, the slogan is a call for extermination; and yet is tolerated with blasé acceptance – and often encouraged – by the progressive mainstream.
And these are often the same people who scream “death to America,” thus illustrating that Jews are still the proverbial canary in the coal mine when it comes to attracting frontline extremist hatred. While prominent conservative voices have condemned the recent wave of violence against Jews, many were nonetheless surprised when it spread to other targets, including Tesla owners and dealers, Republican party offices and officials, and corporate executives like UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, whose murder by a progressive extremist has been lauded by many on the left.
When purveyors of hate discovered they could harass Jews without consequence (and with the approval of many in the progressive political, academic and media establishments), they knew they could attack anybody perceived as ideologically or culturally divergent (usually conservative or anti-woke) without fear of consequence. And when anti-Jewish violence drew neither censure nor punishment from radical prosecutors or prominent Democrats, there was nothing to restrain leftist brownshirts from assaulting anyone they chose to vilify and dehumanize – even as they employed Orwellian doublespeak to accuse their victims of fascism for asserting the right to speak freely, advocating democratic principles, or condemning antisemitism.
Irony is entirely lost on useful idiots who demonstrate little capacity for moral clarity or logical consistency. And they advertise their idiocy whenever they scream “intifada now” or “death to America,” lobby in support of Hamas, or perpetrate antisemitic violence on university campuses across North America – all in the service of Islamists who hate everything these moral dilletantes stand for.
It is the height of absurdity when progressives who denounce their own religious traditions as evil turn around and embrace a radical faith-based hatred of all things Jewish and western – and all the more so when they glorify murder, rape, and kidnapping as noble acts of “resistance.”
Those who justify antisemitism, call for the destruction of Israel and western society, and endorse revisionist Palestinian Arab mythology include socialists, radical feminists, “queers for Palestine,” communist wannabes, and other extremist activists who blindly channel the rejectionist tropes of militant Islam. Without a hint of self-awareness, they legitimize religious doctrines under which they would be oppressed, subjugated, beheaded, or thrown off buildings by the same savage terrorists they regard as ideological confederates. Though they may share a common hatred of Jews and Israel, they would be among the first casualties in any Sharia state.
More frightening than the violence and unrest that have become so pervasive is the refusal of many liberals, including prominent Democratic politicians, to condemn violence against conservatives and others who oppose the woke agenda (despite its resounding rejection by the American electorate last November). In interview after interview, Congressional Democrats have refused to condemn brazen acts of arson, vandalism, or physical assault against perceived enemies of the left or violence against Jewish students and faculty that has continued unabated on college campuses.
It seems liberals have no problem condemning right-wing extremists for racism while giving leftist antisemites a free pass on faux constitutional grounds. Indeed, many invoke the First Amendment to shield progressives who spew hatred against Israel; riot in support of Hamas; call for the Jews’ extermination; repackage ancient blood libels as false claims of genocide in Gaza; harass Jewish university students without fear of arrest; or spout antisemitic rhetoric in the halls of Congress without serious rebuke by party hierarchy.
This double standard is tantamount to saying, “your bigots must be silenced, but ours have the right express themselves through words and violent deeds.”
Not only is this chutzpah, but it also mischaracterizes the First Amendment, especially when asserted to protect institutions that encourage antisemitic excess while simultaneously curtailing any speech they find disagreeable. Many (if not most) liberal universities have codes of conduct restricting speech that might offend progressive sensibilities regarding race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, pronoun usage, or any other social flashpoint of identity politics. Such restrictions are based on priorities held sacrosanct by progressives and designed to silence opposing viewpoints. Under many such policies, students and faculty can be penalized for stating simple scientific truths (e.g., that there are only two biological sexes), expressing conservative values, or defending Israel’s right to exist.
Though antisemitic demonstrators who engage in campus violence claim the benefit of Constitutional safeguards, the First Amendment does not protect incitement or criminality. This principle was firmly articulated by the US Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which upheld restrictions against speech likely to incite “imminent lawless action.”
Given that incitement is not protected speech – and that the Constitution has never been interpreted to shield acts of lawlessness or violence – the Trump administration was within its rights to withhold federal funds from universities that permit antisemitic activism on campus and fail or refuse to protect Jewish students. The receipt of federal funds by private universities is not a fundamental right, but rather a discretionary, conditional entitlement bestowed by the executive branch; and if recipient institutions permit violent antisemitism and deny Jewish students equal protection, the President certainly has the authority to stop the flow of funding.
It seems, however, that many Democrats disagree, as they are circling the wagons and exhorting these institutions to resist the Trump administration – and implicitly by extension, its Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism. Perhaps most prominently, Harvard University rebuffed Trump’s demands aimed at eliminating campus antisemitism (among other things) – despite the threat of a multibillion-dollar funding freeze.
Rather than concede the reality of antisemitism, liberal champions of Harvard and similar institutions are urging resistance, including Barack Obama, who posted the following statement on X:
“Harvard has set an example for other higher-ed institutions — rejecting an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom, while taking concrete steps to make sure all students at Harvard can benefit from an environment of intellectual inquiry, rigorous debate and mutual respect. Let’s hope other institutions follow suit.”
Such statements beg the question of how demanding the cessation of campus antisemitism and protection of Jewish students could in any way “stifle academic freedom.”
How does allowing calls to exterminate the Jewish nation contribute to “an environment of intellectual inquiry, rigorous debate and mutual respect”? Would Obama and others who advocate resistance against President Trump’s efforts to eradicate campus hate be concerned about stifling academic freedom if the victims were black, Hispanic, female, gay, trans, Arab, or Muslim?
It is hypocritical to claim that Trump is somehow threatening academic integrity at universities which for years have used conduct codes and threats of probation, suspension, or expulsion to stifle speech they find disagreeable when it contradicts progressive dogma. Rather than encourage the free exchange of ideas, many institutions have become incubators of intolerance, narrow-mindedness and hatred, where dissent is quashed by systemic bullying and indoctrination that evokes totalitarian excess.
Those who passionately exhort universities to resist Trump’s efforts to eliminate campus antisemitism are not defending academic freedom. In fact, they are enabling extremism, excusing incitement and violence, legitimizing anti-Jewish and anti-western hatred, and reinforcing dictatorial impulses.
Given the influence such institutions have on society and in grooming future leaders, it should come as little surprise that their role in enabling or failing to curb Jew-hatred has normalized intolerance against all. And because radicalized students and agitators have been able to target Jews with little or no pushback, it should likewise come as no surprise that progressive activists have broadened their scope to harass and abuse others with differing ideologies or political affiliations.
Similar radicalization occurred in pre-war Nazi Germany, where institutions of higher learning were often cesspools of antisemitic indoctrination and the philosophy of dehumanization provided an intellectual predicate for genocide. Perhaps not surprisingly, many American universities at the time provided fertile ground for nurturing and disseminating similar loathsome views.
Only a dullard could fail to see the symmetry between then and now; and only a fool could fail to understand that what starts with the Jews doesn’t always end with the Jews.
Matthew Hausman is a noted trial attorney, journalist, writer and editor. He is an adjunct professor of criminal justice, law, and ethics who writes and speaks about American constitutional and international law, foreign policy, Israel and Jewish affairs, Middle East policy, and antisemitism. His columns and articles have appeared in American Thinker; Arutz Sheva/Israel National News, Connecticut Lawyer, Fairfield Business Journal, FrontpageMag, Israpundit, The New English Review, Hamodia, the Sydney-Melbourne (Australia) Jewish Report, and International Medical News. He has appeared on radio programs and podcasts throughout Canada, Australia and the US.And these are often the same people who scream “death to America,” thus illustrating that Jews are still the proverbial canary in the coal mine when it comes to attracting frontline extremist hatred. While prominent conservative voices have condemned the recent wave of violence against Jews, many were nonetheless surprised when it spread to other targets, including Tesla owners and dealers, Republican party offices and officials, and corporate executives like UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, whose murder by a progressive extremist has been lauded by many on the left.
When purveyors of hate discovered they could harass Jews without consequence (and with the approval of many in the progressive political, academic and media establishments), they knew they could attack anybody perceived as ideologically or culturally divergent (usually conservative or anti-woke) without fear of consequence. And when anti-Jewish violence drew neither censure nor punishment from radical prosecutors or prominent Democrats, there was nothing to restrain leftist brownshirts from assaulting anyone they chose to vilify and dehumanize – even as they employed Orwellian doublespeak to accuse their victims of fascism for asserting the right to speak freely, advocating democratic principles, or condemning antisemitism.
Irony is entirely lost on useful idiots who demonstrate little capacity for moral clarity or logical consistency. And they advertise their idiocy whenever they scream “intifada now” or “death to America,” lobby in support of Hamas, or perpetrate antisemitic violence on university campuses across North America – all in the service of Islamists who hate everything these moral dilletantes stand for.
It is the height of absurdity when progressives who denounce their own religious traditions as evil turn around and embrace a radical faith-based hatred of all things Jewish and western – and all the more so when they glorify murder, rape, and kidnapping as noble acts of “resistance.”
Those who justify antisemitism, call for the destruction of Israel and western society, and endorse revisionist Palestinian Arab mythology include socialists, radical feminists, “queers for Palestine,” communist wannabes, and other extremist activists who blindly channel the rejectionist tropes of militant Islam. Without a hint of self-awareness, they legitimize religious doctrines under which they would be oppressed, subjugated, beheaded, or thrown off buildings by the same savage terrorists they regard as ideological confederates. Though they may share a common hatred of Jews and Israel, they would be among the first casualties in any Sharia state.
More frightening than the violence and unrest that have become so pervasive is the refusal of many liberals, including prominent Democratic politicians, to condemn violence against conservatives and others who oppose the woke agenda (despite its resounding rejection by the American electorate last November). In interview after interview, Congressional Democrats have refused to condemn brazen acts of arson, vandalism, or physical assault against perceived enemies of the left or violence against Jewish students and faculty that has continued unabated on college campuses.
It seems liberals have no problem condemning right-wing extremists for racism while giving leftist antisemites a free pass on faux constitutional grounds. Indeed, many invoke the First Amendment to shield progressives who spew hatred against Israel; riot in support of Hamas; call for the Jews’ extermination; repackage ancient blood libels as false claims of genocide in Gaza; harass Jewish university students without fear of arrest; or spout antisemitic rhetoric in the halls of Congress without serious rebuke by party hierarchy.
This double standard is tantamount to saying, “your bigots must be silenced, but ours have the right express themselves through words and violent deeds.”
Not only is this chutzpah, but it also mischaracterizes the First Amendment, especially when asserted to protect institutions that encourage antisemitic excess while simultaneously curtailing any speech they find disagreeable. Many (if not most) liberal universities have codes of conduct restricting speech that might offend progressive sensibilities regarding race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, pronoun usage, or any other social flashpoint of identity politics. Such restrictions are based on priorities held sacrosanct by progressives and designed to silence opposing viewpoints. Under many such policies, students and faculty can be penalized for stating simple scientific truths (e.g., that there are only two biological sexes), expressing conservative values, or defending Israel’s right to exist.
Though antisemitic demonstrators who engage in campus violence claim the benefit of Constitutional safeguards, the First Amendment does not protect incitement or criminality. This principle was firmly articulated by the US Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which upheld restrictions against speech likely to incite “imminent lawless action.”
Given that incitement is not protected speech – and that the Constitution has never been interpreted to shield acts of lawlessness or violence – the Trump administration was within its rights to withhold federal funds from universities that permit antisemitic activism on campus and fail or refuse to protect Jewish students. The receipt of federal funds by private universities is not a fundamental right, but rather a discretionary, conditional entitlement bestowed by the executive branch; and if recipient institutions permit violent antisemitism and deny Jewish students equal protection, the President certainly has the authority to stop the flow of funding.
It seems, however, that many Democrats disagree, as they are circling the wagons and exhorting these institutions to resist the Trump administration – and implicitly by extension, its Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism. Perhaps most prominently, Harvard University rebuffed Trump’s demands aimed at eliminating campus antisemitism (among other things) – despite the threat of a multibillion-dollar funding freeze.
Rather than concede the reality of antisemitism, liberal champions of Harvard and similar institutions are urging resistance, including Barack Obama, who posted the following statement on X:
“Harvard has set an example for other higher-ed institutions — rejecting an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom, while taking concrete steps to make sure all students at Harvard can benefit from an environment of intellectual inquiry, rigorous debate and mutual respect. Let’s hope other institutions follow suit.”
Such statements beg the question of how demanding the cessation of campus antisemitism and protection of Jewish students could in any way “stifle academic freedom.”
How does allowing calls to exterminate the Jewish nation contribute to “an environment of intellectual inquiry, rigorous debate and mutual respect”? Would Obama and others who advocate resistance against President Trump’s efforts to eradicate campus hate be concerned about stifling academic freedom if the victims were black, Hispanic, female, gay, trans, Arab, or Muslim?
It is hypocritical to claim that Trump is somehow threatening academic integrity at universities which for years have used conduct codes and threats of probation, suspension, or expulsion to stifle speech they find disagreeable when it contradicts progressive dogma. Rather than encourage the free exchange of ideas, many institutions have become incubators of intolerance, narrow-mindedness and hatred, where dissent is quashed by systemic bullying and indoctrination that evokes totalitarian excess.
Those who passionately exhort universities to resist Trump’s efforts to eliminate campus antisemitism are not defending academic freedom. In fact, they are enabling extremism, excusing incitement and violence, legitimizing anti-Jewish and anti-western hatred, and reinforcing dictatorial impulses.
Given the influence such institutions have on society and in grooming future leaders, it should come as little surprise that their role in enabling or failing to curb Jew-hatred has normalized intolerance against all. And because radicalized students and agitators have been able to target Jews with little or no pushback, it should likewise come as no surprise that progressive activists have broadened their scope to harass and abuse others with differing ideologies or political affiliations.
Similar radicalization occurred in pre-war Nazi Germany, where institutions of higher learning were often cesspools of antisemitic indoctrination and the philosophy of dehumanization provided an intellectual predicate for genocide. Perhaps not surprisingly, many American universities at the time provided fertile ground for nurturing and disseminating similar loathsome views.
Only a dullard could fail to see the symmetry between then and now; and only a fool could fail to understand that what starts with the Jews doesn’t always end with the Jews.
Matthew Hausman is a noted trial attorney, journalist, writer and editor. He is an adjunct professor of criminal justice, law, and ethics who writes and speaks about American constitutional and international law, foreign policy, Israel and Jewish affairs, Middle East policy, and antisemitism. His columns and articles have appeared in American Thinker; Arutz Sheva/Israel National News, Connecticut Lawyer, Fairfield Business Journal, FrontpageMag, Israpundit, The New English Review, Hamodia, the Sydney-Melbourne (Australia) Jewish Report, and International Medical News. He has appeared on radio programs and podcasts throughout Canada, Australia and the US.
