Gaza and Charities at War: FIRE at NYU
Hamas did it. It is still doing it, and it will do it again. Hamas went house to house with AKs shooting everybody — men, women, children. And even dogs, got dammit. It was scorched earth. Hamas should be hunted down to the ends of the earth. They had body cameras, one of which actually depicted one of the terrorist himself getting shot. The news broadcasted his anguished gurgling cries for a second or two. I was pleased, I’m not gonna lie. But I was also sitting comfortably on the couch at home and this wasn’t a favorite war movie. Hamas should be hunted down to the ends of the earth like a buncha damn dangerous animals. Then killed or captured.
I’ll tell you what, though. If you have been following this blog, you know that nonprofits are deeply involved in the conflict between Hamas and Israel taking place along the Gaza border. Whether they like it or not. Doctors without Borders, the World Health Organization, Harvard, Penn, Amnesty International, and charities all over the place are having to do whatever they do in a manner that does not even suggest — not even accidentally — that they regret the long-term suffering of Gaza residents as much as they do the suffering wrought by Hamas last Saturday. The . . . well . . . growing hysteria right now demands that civil society say nothing about the long term, and that it disdain or punish those within its jurisdiction who do. Not even the philanthropic donor world wants to hear anything other than the first paragraph of this and every other post on this subject. And they demand that charitable organizations don’t just shut up, but speak up in loud and conspicuous opposition to anybody who says anything else right now.
Its NYU’s turn to walk that tightrope. The law student President of the NYU Student Bar Association President got canceled from Chicago’s Winston & Strawn after posting the X message above. NYU, no doubt worried about its own donors and also preserving the educational environment, is equivocal so far. The reaction to Madam President was swift and rather furious, as far as speech goes. Not only did Winston & Strawn rescind its offer of employment, the Student Bar Association disclaimed any implication that it wrote, approved or even saw the President’s message. And then it voted to impeach the President. I tell you what, this thing is getting serious. And not only that, NYU made the mistake of suggesting that students who speak out like the SBA President did might be violating a NYU’s campus speech code — codes that even I have sometimes applauded — and for that might be “disciplined.” What’s next, will the poor dumb student have to explain this whole thing to a state bar committee on character and fitness?
Well. When the frequently litigious Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) heard about what NYU might do, it sent a letter to the Dean of Students reminding him and NYU of the First Amendment:
FIRE is deeply concerned by New York University School of Law’s recent suggestion to The New York Times that it may be investigating student Ryna Workman for their protected political speech amid intense public and campus wide criticism for expressing views about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
“For legal reasons,” NYU Law told The Times Wednesday, “we cannot comment on the specifics of any current student who may be under investigation. Speaking generally, all complaints of bias and/or discriminatory behavior are investigated thoroughly and in accordance with federal, state, and local guidelines, and the appropriate disciplinary action follows the outcome of that process.”
. . .
Workman’s reported statements, conversely, are the very sort of passionate, core political speech one might expect on a college campus. They are wholly protected even if other students found them offensive or even hateful. In the event such speech nonetheless prompts a bias report, it is incumbent on NYU Law to undertake a cursory review of the complaint before launching a potentially meritless disciplinary proceeding.
Investigations carrying the threat of disciplinary action would particularly chill law students of ordinary firmness, who frequently must disclose any disciplinary action when they apply to legal jobs or the bar. These students face additional incentives to self-censor rather than risk any kind of misconduct investigation that could forestall their legal careers. Yet law students, especially, must be free to debate the legal issues of the day without fearing institutional reprisal for engaging in protected speech.
I’d say FIRE better watch its own back. Because when its own donors find out it is threatening to sue NYU for NYU’s suggestion that a student who speaks the wrong way about the war should be disciplined, when NYU is just trying to do what its donors are demanding by taking action against wrong speech, not wanting to appear to cave to demands to tolerate that speech, well FIRE might have to find other donors because now FIRE is reacting in a wrong way with an eye towards long term preservation of the free speech that underlies civil society.
FIRE might learn that ain’t nobody got time for long term thinking or speaking. We need to kill Hamas right now. If you are talking about anything else, shut up.
darryll k. jones